

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Chap..._.-.f Copyright No.. ___. 

Shelf.„Jxl5 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



r^l^nfiW^,^ 




><^-, 



I, 






''^ZrPiAAj fVWj 





THE 



SUPREMACY OF PETER 



OR 



DID CHRIST ESTABLISH A PRIMACY 
IN THE CHURCH ? 



" But one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." — Jesus. 

" And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
being the chief corner stoue." — Paul. 

" To whom coming [coming to Christ], as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, 
but chosen of God, and precious; ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual bouse, an holy 
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." — Peter. 



■^ / 



BV / 



MOSES EASTMAN KELLOGG 



REVIEW AND HERAI^D PUBI.ISHING COMPANY, 
Battle Creek, Michigan. 



UO 



\ 



-4 y^ 

\ \ 




\ 



^6 






^Y' 






■^ 4^ 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1897, 

BY MOSES E. KELLOGG, 

In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 



Also entered at Stationers' Hall, London, Eng. 



DEDICATION. 



To the common members of evangelical Christian 
churches everywhere, whose rights and privileges in the 
church and in religious matters are as often ignored by 
those who, like Diotrephes, love the pre-eminence, as the 
civil rights of people are endangered by those, who by 
birth or by election, occupy the places of authority, this 
book ^s dedicated by one who believes that the principle 
enunciated by Lincoln, that government should be **of 
the people, by the people, and for the people,^^ is a rule 
which applies as fully to the government of the church 
as it does to government in civil affairs. 

THE AUTHOR, 



PREFACE. 



THE object of this little treatise will be best 
gathered from a perusal of its pages. The 
whole scope of the book may be placed under five 
general heads : (i) No primacy was established by 
Christ or recognized in the apostolic writings ; (2) 
how a primacy grew up in the church ; (3) the 
power and position attained by that primacy in the 
temporal reign of the popes ; (4) the loss of the 
temporal power ; and (5) church government as 
revealed in the New Testament. 

The author believes that many people who would 
be glad to know, have not a clear understanding 
of the way the great authority of the bishop of 
Rome was developed ; and should they desire to 
know, they would be obliged to read a mass of 
material which would seriously tax their time and 
strength. He has felt that something should be 
prepared which would, in a brief, yet comprehen- 
sive manner, place this very important subject 
where it might be understood by the common 
people, who have neither the time nor the dispo- 
sition to study large volumes upon the subject. 
Since the matter is one which has long agitated 
Christendom even to the present time, the author 

[7] 



8 PREFACE. 

may be accused of threshing old straw ; but he will 
at least claim that as the subject is still agitated, it 
cannot be out of date, and that as long as time and 
advancing light furnish new kernels of truth, he 
has the right to thresh them out. The subject, 
and especially the historical part, might have been 
greatly enlarged ; but the author feeling sure that 
the Scriptures really settle the question, decided, 
for the sake of brevity, to give only sufficient 
historical evidence to enable the reader at least to 
see a connected line of events and usurpations, by 
which the successors of the first simple bishops 
of the church in Rome were gradually elevated 
to the rank of a spiritual and almost world-wide 
monarchy. 

No feeling of hatred toward Catholics has 
prompted this work. The author has many per- 
sonal friends who are Catholics, and he has no 
hesitation in saying that that church has contained, 
and still contains, many devout Christians, whose 
rights of conscience he would not trench upon in 
the least. It is against the papacy as a system, 
that the author objects, because he fully believes it 
represents and embodies an unscriptural and dan- 
gerous abuse of power, — ^ dangerous to both civil 
and religious liberty. While the author has given 
especial' attention to the papacy as the first and 
greatest usurpation of power in the church, he 
would not thereby apologize for or sustain others 
who have even in a distant way copied Rome's 



PREFACE. 9 

errors. Order and organization without extreme 
authority, and unity without compulsion, is the 
Scriptural ideal of the government of the church. 
Departure from these principles in either direction 
is dangerous. On one side is tyranny, on the other, 
confusion. God is not pleased with either. May 
He who is alone the head of the church, and who 
has said, ' ' Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
end of the world," add his blessing to this humble 
effort put forth for his honor and glory. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

The Supremacy of Peter . . . • 17 

CHAPTER II. 

Examination of Other Texts ... 28 

CHAPTER III. 

Peter, the Rock . . . . . . 42 

CHAPTER IV. 

Inferential Evidence for the Superiority of 

John and Paul ..... 55 

CHAPTER V. 

Examination of Peter's Letters ... 61 

CHAPTER VI. 

Peter's Part in the Council at Jerusalem 68 

CHAPTER VII. 

Was Peter Ever at Rome? . . . .79 

CHAPTER VIII. 

An Appeal to Tradition .... 98 



12 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IX. 

Comparison of Expressions of Authority Used 

BY Peter and Paul . . . . . 122 

CHAPTER X. 

How the Office of Bishop Became Higher 

THAN that of ElDER .... 133 

CHAPTER XL 

Different Orders of Clergy Deyeloped Make 

A Single Head Necessary . . .145 

CHAPTER XH. 

Great Events \vhich Opened the Way for 

THE Primacy . . . . . 151 

CHAPTER XHL 

Development of the Primacy . . .154 

CHAPTER XIV. 

The Division of the Church . . . 166 

CHAPTER XV. 

Great Pretensions of the Papacy . . 177 

CHAPTER XVI. 

The Temporal Power of the Pope . . 194 

CHAPTER XVII. 

The French Revolution and Its Effect upon 

the Papacy ...... 209 



CONTENTS. 13 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Napoleon and the Papacy . . . 217 

CHAPTER XIX. 

The Italian Revolution .... 227 

CHAPTER XX. 
United Italy ...... 235 

CHAPTER XXI. 
Italy Gains Venetia ..... 244 

CHAPTER XXII. 

End of the Temporal Power . . . 253 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

The New Testament Church Government . 259 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

The Relation of Christ, the Head of the 
Church, to the Members of His Body, 
and Their Relation to Each Other . 273 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 



Portrait of Author . . . Frontispiece 

"Follow Me and I will Make You Fishers of 

Men." 26 

Peter Paying Tribute .... 39 

Christ on the Cross Committing His Mother 

TO John ....... 56 

Antioch ....... 71 

Paul in Prison ...... 87 

Belisarius Entering the Citv of Rome . 157 

A Russian Metropolitan Bishop . . 167 

Patriarch of the Greek Church . 174 

Henry IV, Emperor of Germany, Submitting 

TO Pope Gregory VHI . . . „ 184 

Queen Elizabeth . . . . . 188 

Charlemagne ...... 205 

Charlemagne Heading a Convocation of His 

People . . . . . . . 208 

Scene in the French Revolution . . 210 

General Berthier ..... 215 

Napoleon . . . . . . .221 

Victor Emmanuel ..... 230 
[14] 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 1 5 

Louis Napoleon ...... 233 

Count Cavour ...... 236 

Louis Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel Enter- 
ing Milan after the Battle of Solferino 238 
Meeting of Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi 243 
Garibaldi . . . . . . .246 

Heathenism . . . . . . 267 

A Missionary Station . . . . .270 

A Type of -Christian Civilization . . 274 



CHAPTER L 



THE SUPREMACY OF PETER, 

FOR centuries the priests of the Roman Cathohc 
Church have strenuously maintained and culti- 
vated the doctrine of the supremacy of the apostle 
Peter over the church w^hich was established by 
Jesus Christ. This claim of the supremacy of Peter 
also involves the further doctrine of a succession 
of persons holding the same position of authority 
which it is claimed was bestowed upon Peter, and 
reaches in an unbroken line from Peter to the 
present time. In Catholic history these persons 
are known as the bishops, or popes, of Rome ; 
and the claim is made that Peter was the first of 
these, and held a higher rank than any other 
apostle ; that he actually took the office of Christ 
on the earth, after Christ's ascension to heaven, 
and that each of Peter's successors, by virtue of 
that position and succession, has also been the 
vicegerent of Christ, — the especially and divinel}' 
authorized agent of Jesus Christ to stand at the 
head of his church and his work on the earth. 

Christians of other faiths than the Roman Catholic 
have just as strenuously denied and combated this 
doctrine. Of those who have denied and opposed 

[17] 



1 8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

the Roman doctrine above described, the Greek 
Church and the various bodies of Christians to 
whom the common name of "Protestants" has 
been given, are the most noteworthy. The author 
assumes at the outset, what he beheves is suscep- 
tible of proof, and what he feels confident will be 
proved in these pages, that this doctrine of Rome 
rests on no solid basis, and that those who oppose 
the doctrine of the supremacy of Peter and a suc- 
cession of primates following him, hold the truth in 
this matter. 

The proper understanding of this subject depends 
upon a correct answer to the following question : 
Did Jesus Christ establish a primacy among the 
apostles, placing Peter above the others, with pro- 
vision for a successor to the same office, who, like 
Peter, should exercise authority over the whole 
Church.'' — Roman Catholics claim that this was 
done ; Christians of other faiths deny it. 

If this was done, it would seem that it ought to 
have been plainly stated in the inspired writings of 
that period, not leaving such an important matter 
as the headship of the church to be learned by 
doubtful inferences and the dim light of tradition. 
As inferences at best carry with them only a ques- 
tionable authority, or even authenticity, no impor- 
tant doctrine of the church should be based on 
inference alone ; especially since fancy, joined to 
our predilections in favor of a particular doctrine, 
often clothes a mere inference with all the authority 



THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 1 9 

of a plain statement of the Scriptures. An exami- 
nation of the real, Scriptural foundation for this 
Romish doctrine is therefore necessary in order 
that we may know whether the supremacy of Peter, 
and of the popes of Rome as his pretended succes- 
sors in office, has a real or only a fancied and arti- 
ficial basis. 

It may be thought by some that the discussion 
of this question at the present time is altogether 
unnecessary and unprofitable. We are inclined to 
think differently. The marvelous growth of the 
Roman Catholic Church in these United States 
and in other countries, surpassing that of any other 
time since the great Reformation ; the favor with 
which she is now regarded by very many professing 
Protestants ; her arrogant pretensions to be the 
"American Church;" and the crafty manner in 
which the deyotees of that church work them- 
selves into every position of honor which they can 
secure, is sufficient evidence that the only way to 
escape being captured in her toils is to know the 
Scriptures and the truth in this matter. We must 
know for ourselves ; not only in a general way, but 
we need to understand the details of the Romish 
position, and the scriptures used to sustain it ; and 
we should be able in a specific manner to point out 
the fallacious and groundless nature of these claims 
for the good of others who are not acquainted with 
the word of God, and who have not especially 
studied this subject. 



20 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

What, then, are the Scriptural proofs that to 
Peter was granted a supremacy over the other 
apostles and over the church; that he knew that 
such supremacy was given to him ; that he exercised 
the same either before or after the daath of Christ; 
and that he or any one else undertook to transmit 
that authority to others who were successively to 
occupy the position of vicegerents of Christ on 
earth ? The Roman Catholic Church claims that 
it finds such proof in the Scriptures ; and a dis- 
tinguished writer in the Catholic Mirror, having 
taken up this question, claims to find what he 
calls ''twelve texts of sacred Scripture, everyone 
of which bears infallibly on its face the direct action 
of the Son of God establishing the supremacy of 
Peter." ^ These texts have been used by the Roman 
Catholic Church for hundreds of years as Biblical 
proof of the supremacy of Peter over the other 
apostles and over the church. Hence an examina- 
tion of these positions as given in the Mirror is 
not the examination of the opinion or ideas of one 
individual member of that church, but is really an 
investigation of what the Catholic Church regards 
as the Scriptural foundation of the doctrine of 
Peter's supremacy. Since these scriptures are 
cited as containing the proofs of this position, it 
is natural and proper that we should examine them 
to see if this evidence of the supremacy of Peter 
is really on the face of these texts or whether it is 
put there by a skilful misinterpretation of the same. 

^Mirror of April 14, 1S94. 



THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 21 

It is not expedient to quote these statements in 
the Miri'-07' word for word, as this would take too 
much space ; but we will give all the Scripture 
references, with a clear statement of the positions 
deduced from them. The following are the texts 
referred to by this wTiter to prove his first proposi- 
tion. In order to give the Catholic position a fair 
examination, the reader should carefully read the 
references given : John i : 39 ; Mark 1:14, 17 ; John 
I : 40, I : 37 ; and Mark i : 16, 17. 

From these scriptures it is claimed that since 
Andrew was Peter's elder brother, and had received 
Christ before Peter had believed on him, and had 
also been a disciple of John the Baptist, he should 
naturally have been mentioned yfr^-/ in the enumera- 
tion of the apostles ; but that, on the contrary, the 
evangelist Mark places Simon before Andrew, and 
that this signifies a precedence ; that Mark was 
inspired to name Peter first because of the posi- 
tion of eminence which Christ designed that Peter 
should occupy, passing over his elder brother, who 
had been a disciple of John and a believer in Jesus 
before Peter believed. 

While we care less for the premises upon which 
this conclusion is based than we do for the conclu- 
sion that is drawn from them, justice to the subject 
demands that the premises be carefully examined. 
Let us then examine the premises upon which this 
argument is founded. The statement that Andrew 
was older than Peter is nothing but a surmise ; it 



22 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

has no Scriptural foundation. All the apostles had 
been followers of John the Baptist. Proof of this 
may be found in Acts 1:21. Here, in the choice 
of another apostle to fill the place of Judas, the 
only qualification mentioned as being requisite is 
that he should not only be a man who had been 
with them during the ministry of Jesus, but his ex- 
perience must moreover date from the baptism of 
John ; hence it is fair to conclude that no greater 
experience was required for the new apostle than 
the other apostles themselves possessed. This 
being the case, the argument drawn from the 
supposed fact that Peter was preferred before his 
elder brother, who had also been a disciple of John 
when Peter was not, has no foundation in fact. 
Nothing, then, is left as a basis for this deduction 
that Peter was supreme, as far as the scriptures 
thus already examined bear on the case, except the 
fact that when the apostles are named, the name 
of Peter stands at the head of the list. 

Coming, then, directly to the consideration of the 
texts quoted to prove the supremacy of Peter, it 
will first be noticed that nothing is said of Peter's 
supremacy in any of these texts. His supremacy, 
then, does not appear upon \.\\^ face of these texts ; 
for by the face of a text we understand is meant its 
obvious meaning without any labored construction 
or interpretation. The proof of Peter's supremacy, 
if proof there be, is in the strained and impossible 
interpretations and not in the texts themselves. 



THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 23 

In reference to the deductions here claimed for 
Peter's supremacy, a few thoughts may be pre- 
sented : — 

The greatness of an apostle does not depend 
upon the time when he becomes a believer, or the 
order in which his name is mentioned. If it were 
so, there would be a regular gradation of rank from " 
first to last ; but in the lists of the names of the 
apostles the same order is not always maintained. 
In the book of Matthew, Thomas is named before 
Matthew, and in Mark, Matthew is named before 
Thomas. Again, Matthew and Luke place Andrew 
next after Peter, but Mark, and Luke in the Acts 
of the Apostles, places Andrew fourth in the list. 
(See Matt. lo : 2, Luke 6: 14, Mark 3 : 17, and 
Acts 1:13.) So we conclude that the relative 
position of an apostle cannot be known by the 
place his name occupies in the list, but it may 
rather be known by the work which he accom- 
plishes. Thus Paul by the Spirit testifies : ' ' For 
I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest 
apostles." 2 Cor. 11:5. The reason for this just 
conclusion is fully given in this chapter, which con- 
tains a thrilling narrative of his labors. If he 
was not a whit less than the chiefest of the apostles, 
he was not less than Peter ; and indeed he was once 
obliged to take a decided stand against Peter him- 
self, and that at a time when the Roman Catholic 
Church would have us believe that Peter was the 
infallible head of the church. This is what the 



24 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

record says : ** But when Peter was come to An- 
tioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was 
to be blamed." Gal. 2:11. In the same chapter 
Paul says that the gospel which worked effectually 
through Peter to the Jews was mighty in him 
(Paul) toward the Gentiles, and he places James, 
Peter, and John on an equality as pillars in their 
support of the gospel. Verses 8, 9. 

It may be well to notice that in this mention of 
the names of three noted apostles (including Peter) 
James and not Peter is mentioned first ; and since 
Paul as well as the evangelists wrote by the inspira- 
tion of the Holy Ghost, if the mention of Peter 
before the other apostles by the evangelists indi- 
cated Peter's supremacy, the mention of James 
before Peter by the apostle Paul, and that as late 
as the year A. d. 58, when, according to Catholic 
doctrine, Peter was fully established in the primacy, 
would just as certainly prove the supremacy of 
James. 

There is one more point relating to the argument 
based upon the mention of the name of Peter at 
the head of the list by the evangelists, which will 
be noticed. In the Latin version of the New 
Testament, which is the one used by the Roman 
Catholic Church, where it reads, ' ' The First was 
Simon, who is called Peter," the word answering to 
our English words ** the first " is '' privuis ; " and 
from this an argument is sometimes made by Catho- 
lics that since Peter is here called primus, here is 



THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 2^ 

the evidence of the primacy. But we should re- 
member that the word ' ' primus " in the Latin has 
exactly the same meaning as the English words 
*'the first," no more, no less. Those who speak 
the English language, or any other language than 
the Latin, and who have only heard the word 
^^prinms'' as associated with the supremacy of 
Peter or of some other prelate, easily come to 
attach a different meaning to the word from that 
which actually belongs to it. It is also true that 
the long-continued use* of a word in a certain sense 
changes its meaning from what it originally meant. 
Thus the use of the word ^' priimis'' as applied to 
Peter by Catholics has no doubt effected a change 
from its original meaning, giving it a kind of theo- 
logical sense. All we care about knowing is what 
was meant by the word '' priimts'' before this 
theological meaning was attached to it. Then it 
was simply "the first." Only in the record in 
Matthew is Peter called the first, though three 
evangelists place his name at the head of the list. 
Why did they do this } Peter was certainly one 
of the first three believers in Christ, who attained 
to the position of apostles. John i : 39-41. The 
fact related in these verses, that Andrew came to 
Simon and told him of Christ, does not, however, 
necessarily prove that Peter was not himself a be- 
liever at that time. He w^as thus one of the first 
three who believed of those who became apostles. 
He also became much more prominent in the work 



26 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

than his brother Andrew of whom we know Kttle. 
James, Peter, and John were pillars (Gal. 2 : 9), 
and they were the principal men in the gospel 
work until Paul eclipsed them all. Catholics claim 
that Andrew was the elder brother, and that the 
passing over the name of Andrew and placing the 
name of Peter first was very significant on that 
account. But of this there is no proof ; and it 
may be that Peter was the elder brother, and took 
the precedence of Andrew on that account as well 
as because of his zeal. He was certainly old enough 
to have a wife when he was called to the apostleship, 
he being the only apostle of whose marriage we 
have positive Scriptural proof. (See Luke 4 : 38,) 
These reasons — his age, his early belief in Christ, 
and the prominent part he took in the work of the 
gospel-are sufficient reasons for his name being 
placed at the head of the list, and for his being 
called ' ' the first " by one of the evangelists ; but 
they are not sufficient reasons to warrant the belief 
that he was preferred above the other apostles, 
or that he was to be the head over the church 
and to have successors to that office. If a man 
was counting his sheep in Latin, and wished to 
name them and number them from first to last, 
or if he only wished to name them and to designate 
the first, he would be obliged to call the one first 
mentioned, the priviiLS, but this would hardly prove 
that there was a primacy in the flock, in the sense 
that the word is now applied to the head of the 




"Follow Me, and I Will Make You Fishers 
OF Men." Matt. 4 : ig. 



THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 2/ 

Catholic Church, or that this sheep was the head 
over all other sheep. 

These facts which we have adduced, show that 
there is nothing whatever in the claim that the 
mention of the name of Peter first in the list of 
the apostles in the gospels proves that he had any 
supremacy over the other apostles or over the 
church. The whole argument which is built on 
these texts for the supremacy of Peter, has no 
Scriptural foundation whatever. 



CHAPTER IL 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 

HAVING, we believe, successfully established the 
position that the place which an apostle's name 
occupies in a Scriptural list of their names has no 
signification as to his superiority or inferiority ; and 
that even if such superiority can be established, 
another rule for determining it must be devised, 
we pass to the examination of other texts which 
are believed to sustain the idea of the supremacy 
of Peter over the apostles and over the church. 

It is claimed that Christ pronounced him (Peter) 
"alone blessed" (Matt. i6 : i6, 17); that Christ es- 
pecially prayed for him (Luke 22 : 31, 32) ; that 
after Christ's resurrection, he sent a special message 
to Peter (Mark 16:7); that Peter received a special 
commission to feed the flock of Christ (John 21 : 
15-17); that Christ paid tribute for himself and 
Peter (Matt. 17 : 24-27) ; and that after the ascen- 
sion of Christ, Peter called for the election of 
another apostle to fill the place made vacant by 
the apostasy and death of Judas. Acts i : 15-26. 
These texts afford the premises for further deduc- 
tions to sustain the idea of Peter's supremacy. Let 
[28] 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 29 

them be carefully scanned to ascertain whether the 
conclusions drawn from them are natural and easy 
or forced and illogical. 

Reverting to the scripture first quoted, — Matt. 
16:16, 17, — we ask. Is it true, as held by the 
Catholic Church, and stated by the writer in the 
Mirror, that Jesus pronounced Peter ' ' alone 
blessed " } There is nothing of the kind in the 
texts. Because of Peter's confession that Jesus 
was the Christ, the Lord pronounced a blessing 
upon him ; but shall we conclude that the other 
apostles did not also receive a blessing when they 
made the same confession } All of them had to 
make a similar confession, or they could not retain 
their position as apostles. Indeed, the belief of 
this very statement made by Peter was the reason 
why they were chosen to be apostles. Peter was 
naturally very impulsive, and often put himself 
forward among the other apostles, who were con- 
tent to be more modest in their demeanor. This 
was the case when Peter declared that though all 
should forsake Christ, he would not. He even pro- 
tested "vehemently, If I should die with thee, I 
will not deny thee." Then the record adds, " Like- 
wise also said they all." Mark 14:29-31. It is 
recorded that Christ blessed little children (Mark 
10 : 16), but would it be a truthful statement to 
make, that Christ pronounced those ''alone 
blessed," because no others at that time were 
mentioned as being blessed } It would certainly 



30 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER, 

be a conclusion not warranted by the facts in the 
case and the forms of sound logic. The same may 
be said of the conclusion that Peter was "alone 
blessed," because at that time he only was men- 
tioned. Christ's blessings were pronounced upon 
people whenever they were prepared to receive 
them ; and these blessings, while comforting to 
those to whom they were addressed, did not neces- 
sarily depreciate others who did net at that time 
receive a similar blessing. It is worthy of remark 
that while three of the evangelists record this con- 
versation between Christ and the apostles, and also 
Peter's confession of Christ, no one but Matthew 
mentions the blessing, and even Mark, who is 
thought to have been inspired to teach the su- 
premacy of Peter, does not mention the blessing 
that was pronounced upon him. 

A little later, as described in the same chapter 
(Matt. 1 6 : 22, 23), the same impulsive Peter took 
it upon himself to rebuke his Lord and Master. If 
it were on record that he rebuked the other apos- 
tles, it might be taken as an evidence of his su- 
premacy, but the most sanguine believer in that 
theory would not refer to this event in support of 
his doctrine. Christ was obliged to say, " Get thee 
behind me Satan: thou art an offense unto me." 
Now if at one time a blessing pronounced upon Peter 
because of his confession of Christ indicates that he 
was "alone blessed" and others were excluded 
from the same blessing, because it is not recorded 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 3 1 

that these were blessed, then would not this later 
occurrence where Peter is severely reprimanded 
and declared to be an offense unto Christ, as surely 
prove that Peter nlone was reprimanded, and that 
he alone was an offense unto Christ ? a conclusion 
that would militate very much against any claim 
put forth for him that he was to be the head of the 
church. 

The fact is that all the apostles were in the 
school of Christ ; and they were comforted, chided, 
reprimanded, or blessed, as their conduct at various 
times demanded. That one or more of them were 
at one time blessed, or that they were at another 
time reproved and corrected, proves nothing one 
way or.the other as to their superiority or inferi- 
ority. We therefore fail to find in Matt. i6 : i6, 17 
any evidence that Peter was "alone blessed," or 
that the blessing which he did receive gave him 
authority over the other apostles, or in any wav 
indicated that he ever would possess such au- 
thority, or that those who had made or would 
make the same confession would not receive a 
similar blessing. 

We will now consider Luke 22 : 31 to see if we 
can find any evidence of Peter's supremacy in the 
statement there made by Christ that he had prayed 
for Peter. Scanning the record from the 24th 
verse down to the verse where Christ assures Peter 
that he had prayed for him, we can learn some 
very interesting facts, w^hich are fully sufficient to 



32 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

explain Christ's prayer for Peter, and leave no ne- 
cessity for inference that Christ prayed for him 
because he was to be the head of the church. 

First, we notice that there was strife among the 
apostles, the point of discussion being, ' ' which of 
them should be accounted the greatest." Christ 
reproves them for this conduct, and then address- 
ing Peter, he says, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan 
hath desired to have you, that he may sift you 
as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy 
faith fail not : and when thou art converted, 
strengthen thy brethren." Christ had most plainly 
cautioned his disciples against indulging in a desire 
to be chief. To the mother of James and John, 
who desired a promise of the exaltation of her 
children, and who came to him, evidently with 
their permission for that purpose, he administered 
a kind but firm rebuke. Matt. 20 : 20-28. At 
another time when speaking to the multitude and 
to his disciples, of the scribes and Pharisees, who 
loved the homage of man, he said : " But be not 
ye called Rabbi : for one is your Master, even 
Christ; and all ye are brethren." Matt. 23:8. 
Again, when at one time his disciples had been 
disputing as to which of them should be the great- 
est, he took a child and set him in the midst of 
them, and from this picture of innocence of worldly 
ambition, taught a most precious lesson of humility 
to his warring followers. Mark 9:35, 36. Noth- 
ing is clearer from his teachings than that there 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 33 

was not to be anything ttke arbitrary ' ' lordship " 
or the exercise of ' ' authority " among his followers. 
Mark 10:42. To his disciples . who complained 
that a certain man was casting out devils in his 
name, but was not following them, the Lord said, 
" Forbid him not : for there is no man which shall 
do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak 
evil of me." Mark 9:39. It was to be Peter's 
duty to "strengthen" his brethren, not to rule 
them. 

Taking these facts and circumstances into con- 
sideration, is it reasonable to believe that Christ 
prayed for Peter, to indicate his supremacy either 
then or at any subsequent time ? Is it not more 
reasonable to conclude that Peter, following his 
inlpetuous nature, was foremost in the strife to be 
greatest ; that he was under the influence of Satan 
while so doing ; and that the Lord's prayer for him 
was that his sinful desire for supremacy might be 
eradicated from his heart } When this should be 
accomplished, — when he should be converted, and 
the selfishness and desire to be superior to his 
brethren should be gone, — then he could strengthen 
others. This is the manifest sense of the text. 
Christ prayed for Peter, not to show Peter's suprem- 
acy, or that he favored him more than he did the 
other apostles, but because, tempted by Satan and 
filled with selfish ambition, he needed his prayers. 
That prayer was answered, not by giving Peter his 
desire to be above his brethren, but by giving him. 
3 



34 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

repentance for his evil course, and making him a 
useful man in the preaching of the gospel and the 
establishment of the church in the earth. 

We are now prepared to consider Mark 16:7. 
This text describes a scene which took place im- 
mediately after the resurrection of Christ. To the 
women who came early to the sepulcher, the angel 
said, ' ' But go your way, tell his disciples and 
Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee : there 
shall ye see him, as he said unto you." From this 
passage it is claimed that since a special message 
is here sent to Peter, calling him by name, it is 
evidence of his superiority over the other apostles. 
This argument, of course, is entirely inferential ; 
there is no statement in the Scriptures that in so 
doing Christ showed any preference for Peter. We 
therefore raise the question, Would the fact that a 
special message was sent to a person be a certain 
evidence of the preferment of that person ? Or, 
changing the question a little, and applying it di- 
rectly to the principle involved in this controversy. 
Would the fact that Christ sent a special message 
to a person necessarily indicate that that person 
was preferred to be the head of the church ? Christ 
sent a special message to Herod (Luke 13 : 32) ; 
but no one would conclude that this was an expres- 
sion of preference for Herod. Simply sending a 
message to Peter, which was precisely like that 
which he sent to all the disciples collectively, 
would not necessarily indicate any superiority of 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 35 

Peter or preference for him. If it could be proved 
that he was more highly honored than the other 
apostles, this might be taken as significant of the 
fact, if there were no other and better reason 
for this action. We must remember that this 
supremacy is the very thing that this text is quoted 
to prove, but it certainly does not prove it. We 
here recall to the mind of the reader that a claim 
was made for the supremacy of Peter, on the ground 
that in the list of names of the apostles he was 
mentioned^;'.?/; but here, in the text we are con- 
sidering, not only the apostles but all the disciples 
are collectively referred to before Peter is men- 
tioned. Surely if the design was to honor Peter, 
the message should have been reversed so that it 
would have been, ' ' Go tell Peter and my disciples. " 
It is easy to imagine that if this Scriptural order 
of the message had been reversed, if Peter had 
been mentioned first, it would have been considered 
another great argument for his supremacy. But 
in this message Peter is placed after all the dis- 
ciples ; and hence, if the rule laid down by the 
Catholic Church as applying to the enumeration 
of the apostles as given in Matthew lo, should be 
applied here, Peter would be the least of the 
disciples. 

There is another and more reasonable cause for 
this mention of Peter, which, although but an 
inference, is a much more natural and logical in- 
ference than that used to prove Peter's supremacy. 



36 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Peter had made great professions of loyalty to 
Christ. He had said, ' ' Though all men shall be 
offended because of thee, yet will I never be 
offended." Matt. 26 : 33. More than this ; after 
being told by Christ that he would deny him, he 
had declared with great vehemence, " If I should 
die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise." 
Mark 14:29-31. The other disciples said the 
same thing, though not with Peter's vehemence and 
assurance ; but when they were all brought to the 
actual test, no one made such a miserable failure 
as did Peter. Three times he denied his Lord ; 
the last time, with cursing and swearing. 

Reminded by the look which Jesus cast upon him, 
of the enormity of his offense, "he went out and 
wept bitterly." Matt. 26:75. It is more than 
probable that he despised himself and felt that he 
had no longer a right to claim to be a disciple of 
the Lord. Had he not three times denied him 
even with cursing ? Men with an impulsive nature, 
like Peter, are generally either in an exalted or 
depressed state of mind. How natural that he 
should be utterly disheartened and discouraged ! 
And even if he should hear that Jesus had risen 
from the dead, and that he had sent a message to 
his disciples to meet him in Galilee, how could he, 
after this shameful experience, call himself a dis- 
ciple of Christ ? By his own conduct he had put 
himself entirely out of the discipleship. The other 
disciples, not having sinned so grievously, might 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 3/ 

go, but how could he meet his Master, unless there 
were sent to him some special token that Jesus still 
cared for him ? Such were the thoughts that would 
naturally afflict the mind of Peter at that time. 
The pitying Saviour knowing it, added to the general 
message a special word to Peter. His name was 
called that he might know that his Master had not 
cast him off, notwithstanding Peter had denied him. 
Even after his great sin, he was still loved by the 
Lord, and called by name, that he might take heart, 
and by the mistakes of the past learn his own weak- 
ness and to rely more fully upon divine strength. 
This, we maintain, is a natural and logical infer- 
ence to draw from the record, and is much more in 
harmony with the facts in the case than that Christ 
sent a special message to Peter to show a prefer- 
ence for him, or to indicate his prospective su- 
premacy. 

This circumstance also explains why Christ ad- 
dressed Peter as recorded in John 21 : 15-17, which 
scripture is also taken to prove the supremacy of 
Peter. At Peter's suggestion, several of the apos- 
tles were about to resume their former occupation 
of fishing. They entered a boat and set forth, but 
success did not crown their efforts. Indeed, their 
experience was very similar to that which they 
had just previous to the time when Jesus first called 
them to preach the gospel. Luke 5 : i-i i. They 
were not heeding that divine call to "catch men," 
but were returning to fishing, and Peter was the 



38 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

one who had proposed doing it. Jesus appeared to 
them upon the bank of the lake, questioned them, 
and was told that they had caught nothing. He 
then repeated the miracle which at the first encour- 
aged them to take up the gospel work, giving them 
another miraculous draught of fishes, and provided 
food for them, indicating by this that he could sup- 
ply their wants. Then addressing Peter in a way 
to remind him gently of his failings, he asked him 
repeatedly if he loved him, which could not but re- 
mind this disciple of his former protestations of love 
and subsequent denial of his Lord. He then re- 
called him to his duty, the work to which he had 
called him three and a half years before by the 
same lake, and perhaps in the same place, — to 
preach the gospel, to catch men, and to labor, not 
for natural food for himself, but to give spiritual 
food to the church. "Feed my sheep," "Feed 
my lambs," was the divine commission given to 
him. In all this there is a promise that Christ 
would supply his temporal wants, a gentle reproof 
for Peter's unbelief, and a confirmation of that pre- 
vious call to preach the gospel, of which he was 
apparently losing sight ; but there is nothing in all 
this transaction to indicate the supremacy of Peter. 
The argument for Peter's supremacy, based upon 
Christ's paying the tribute money for Peter (Matt. 
17 : 24-27), will now be considered. It is held that 
this occurrence is proof that Christ manifested a 







PETER PAYING TRIBUTE. 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 39 

'* marked preference" for Peter. Like all the 
other scriptures we have examined, which are 
offered to prove that Christ expressed a preference 
for Peter, the evidence presented is nothing but 
the weakest kind of an inference. 

Let us examine the circumstances carefully : An 
officious gatherer of tribute, evidently anxious to 
get all the money he could, asked Peter if his 
Master did not pay tribute. It is also very prob- 
able that he suggested that Peter also ought to 
pay. Peter reported the matter to his Master, 
who, after first proving that they were under no 
obligation to pa}^ the tribute, secured the money in 
a miraculous way to pay for himself and Peter, who 
was in trouble over the matter. There is no evi- 
dence that the other apostles were asked to pay the 
tribu>te, and there is nothing to show a preference 
for Peter in this transaction. If he had paid for 
Peter and had refused to pay for the other apostles, 
then it might appear that Peter was especially 
favored. To give a dollar to one who is needy, is 
no sign of preference for that person above those 
who are not needy, and who receive nothing. 

The real lesson here taught is that it is proper 
under certain circumstances to submit to exactions 
which are not legal and cannot be enforced, rather 
than to offend those whom we hope to benefit. 
There is not in this event a basis even for an infer- 
ence that any preference is expressed for Peter, 



40 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and nothing but an intense desire to find something 
for proof would ever lead any one to draw infer- 
ential evidence of Peter's supremacy from this text. 

The claim of supremacy for Peter resting upon 
the record of the part he took in the choice of a 
new apostle (Acts 2 : i 5-26), will now be consid- 
ered. Judas, the apostate, being dead, it was nec- 
essary that one of the disciples should be chosen 
to take his place. To do this, the question must be 
brought before the disciples. Peter was never 
known to be slow in speech, whether right or 
wrong. Acting with his usual forwardness, though 
now improved and corrected by the tests to which 
he had been subjected, and the reproofs he had re- 
ceived, he called for the election of another apostle 
to fill the place of Judas. It will be noticed that 
Peter did not arrogate or assume any authority in 
the matter. Addressing the disciples as " men and 
brethren," as though they were his equals in the 
work, he placed the matter before them and asked 
that a suitable person be selected and ordained to 
serve with them as a witness of Christ's resurrection. 
The record states that they appointed two. This 
would indicate that a discussion had taken place 
among the disciples as to the proper man for the 
place, and also that the selection of the new 
apostle was not left to Peter alone, but that it was 
the act of all the disciples. 

The part taken by Peter in the selection cannot 
by any means be taken to sustain the idea that he 



EXAMINATION OF OTHER TEXTS. 4I 

was supreme. Indeed, it may be used to prove the 
contrary ; for if Peter was at that time the recog- 
nized head of the church, taking Christ's place as 
his vicegerent, with the example of Christ choos- 
ing his own apostles less than four years before, 
fresh in his mind, would he not have made the 
choice himself ? Instead of doing this, he left the 
selection to all the disciples, and to the Lord, who 
knew the hearts of men. There is nothing, then, 
in this transaction from beginning to end that can 
be made to favor in the least degree the idea of the 
supremacy of Peter over the other apostles. The 
texts we have examined and which are adduced to 
prove that doctrine, utterly fail to prove anything 
of the kind. All the evidence is inferential ; the 
inferences are not logically drawn, and in several 
instances, inferences decidedly against the idea of 
Peter's supremacy may be clearly drawn from the 
texts. 



CHAPTER IIL 



PETER, THE ROCK, 

TT7E now come to the statement made by Christ 
VV to Peter, found in Matt. i6 : 17-19. This 
text is the stronghold, of the Cathohc doctrine of 
the supremacy of Peter ; for while all the other 
scriptures quoted in support of the theory of Peter's 
supremacy depend entirely upon inferential evi- 
dence, in this text there is an apparent statement 
that Peter had a special power conferred upon him. 
We say apparent ; for while it may be proved that 
to Peter was here given a certain power, this power 
did not imply a supremacy over the other apostles ; 
for all the apostles had power equal to that which 
was given to Peter. No power can be greater 
than the power to forgive sins, which Jesus gave 
to all his apostles. ' ' And when he had said this, 
he breathed on them, and said unto them. Receive 
ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, 
they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever 
sins ye retain, they are retained." John 20 : 22, 23. 
In the exegesis of the Scriptures it is not wise to 
jump to a conclusion from the consideration of one 
text merely. Dangerous heresies are built up and 
propagated in this way. It is better to take a 
[42] 



PETER, THE ROCK. 43 

general survey of all the scriptures bearing upon 
a certain point before coming to a conclusion re- 
garding it. Notice carefully this statement of 
Christ to Peter with the connecting circumstances. 
Christ asked this question : ' ' Whom do men say 
that I, the Son of man, am .? " Not a more im- 
portant question than this can possibly be asked. 
The salvation, not only of Peter but also of every 
person in the world, depends upon the way he 
answers this question. "And Simon Peter an- 
swered and said, Thou art the Christ, the son of 
the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto 
him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah : for flesh 
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my 
Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto 
thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee 
the ke3^s of the kingdom of heaven : and whatso- 
ever thou shaft bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." Upon this scripture 
it is held that the church of Christ is built on Peter 
alone, and that to him. was given the power of 
binding and loosing ; that he therefore was made 
head of the church, and that this power and head- 
ship of the church was to be transmitted to his 
successors as long as time shall last. 

Let us look at the several points here presented, 
which are claimed to be evidences of Peter's su~ 



46 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

But it will be asked, Did not Christ say that he 
would build his church upon Peter, when he said, 
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
my church " ? — No, indeed. Christ himself is the 
Rock upon which the church is based. In Deu- 
teronomy 32, Christ is several times called the Rock, 
thus : ' ' He is the Rock, his work is perfect : . . . 
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right 
is he;" " lightly esteemed the Rock of his salva- 
tion;" "of the Rock that begat thee thou art 
unmindful; " "for their rock is not as our Rock." 
"Who is a Rock save our God .^ " Ps. 18:31. 
Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I. " Ps. 
61:2. Other texts of this character might be 
quoted from the Old Testament. The New Testa- 
ment also declares that Christ is the Rock. Hear 
what Christ himself says: "Whosoever heareth 
these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken 
him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a 
rock." Matt. 7 : 24. But he who builds upon 
Christ's words builds upon Christ himself. 

Paul bears testimony to the same truth when, 
speaking of God's people of former days, he says, 
"They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed 
them : and that Rock was Christ." i Cor. 10 : 4. 
Again Paul speaks of the church as being ' ' built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." 
Eph. 2 : 20. Here all the apostles and the prophets 
arQ classed together as secondary foundation ma- 



PETER, THE ROCK. 47 

terial, no special quality being given to Peter, but 
Jesus Christ is called the chief stone. And Peter 
himself, for whom the claim is made that he is the 
foundation of the church, gives that place to Christ 
in the following words : ' ' To whom coming [com- 
ing to Christ], as unto a living stone, disallowed 
indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 
ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual 
house, an holy priesthood. . . . Wherefore also it 
is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion 
a chief corner-stone, elect, precious : and he that 
believeth on him shall not be confounded." i Peter 
2 : 4-6. 

Again the same Peter says of Christ : ' ' This is 
the stone which was set at naught of you builders, 
which is become the head of the corner." Acts 
4:11. Paul makes this very clear in i Cor. 1:12. 
The church in Corinth was divided and was break- 
ing up into factions. Thus we read : " Now this I 
say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and 
I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." 
Here some were saying that they were of Cephas, 
or Peter. Now if Peter was the head of the church 
at this time, which he certainly must have been if 
he ever was, those who were saying that they were 
of Peter were right, and it would be the manifest 
duty of Paul to tell them so. But Paul reproved 
them all, the followers of Peter as well as the fol- 
lowers of Apollos. He told them that in thus 
trying to look to some man as a head, they were 

4 



48 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

''carnal," and that these men were but "minis- 
ters " by whom they had beheved. Finally, he 
made the following striking statement in regard 
to the foundation of the church : "According to 
the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise 
master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and 
another buildeth thereon. But let every man take 
heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foun- 
dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ." i Cor. 3 : lo, ii. Paul had laid 
down the true foundation, Jesus Christ, but some 
were trying to take Peter for a foundation and build 
upon him, but they were rebuked by Paul, and 
Christ is set forth by him as the one and only true 
foundation. 

Jesus Christ is a solid foundation for the church, 
such as cannot be found in any man, no matter 
how highly endowed. He is the one who has said : 
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth," and he invites all to come to him. " Come 
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest." Matt, ii : 28. He is 
the one Mediator, he is the One that God gave 
"to be the head over all things to the church, 
which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth 
all in all." Eph. i : 22, 23. Peter never occupied 
that relation to the church ; the universal sense of 
the Scriptures forbids such a thing. 

The church of Jesus Christ dates from an earlier 
period than the days of the apostle Peter, or the 



PETER, THE ROCK. 49 

time when God was manifested in the flesh in 
Jesus Christ. There was a "church in the wil- 
derness " (Acts 7 : 38), and Christ was the head 
of his church at that time, and directed it. i Cor. 
10 : 1-9. That the church covers the ages may be 
seen from the fact that prophets as well as apostles 
form the secondary foundation material. Enoch, 
Moses, Samuel, and Elijah are in that foundation 
material as well as James, Peter, John, and Paul. 
To take the apostle Peter and make him the head 
of the church and the chief foundation, is as incon- 
gruous as it would be to take Moses and make him 
the only head and true foundation. Again, the 
church existed long ages before Peter was born. 
If a man was to be endowed as the head of the 
church and was to have earthly successors, he 
should have lived at the earliest period of history. 
An age-lasting church must needs have an age- 
lasting head. Such a head is Jesus Christ. The 
church had a head before Peter ; it has the same 
head now. 

Having settled this question according to facts 
which the Scriptures iinaninioiisly teach, it is easy 
to understand the words of Christ to Peter. Peter's 
name had been Simon ; and when Jesus Christ, the 
"chief corner-stone," called him that he might be 
brought into contact with him the "living Stone," 
he called him Cephas — "a stone." John i : 42. 
James and John were also given names significant 
of the important part they were to take in the 



so THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

preaching of the gospel. Mark 3:17. These 
three men, who had additional names given to 
them by Christ, are spoken of by Paul as " pillars." 
Gal. 2:9. In other scriptures all the apostles are 
called alike stones in that building of which Jesus 
Christ is the chief corner-stone. Eph. 2 : 20-22 ; 
I Peter 2:4, 5. Christ did not say, Thou art 
Peter, and upon thee I will build my church, but 
he said, ' ' Thou art Peter, and upon this 7'ock I will 
build my church." We must not make the same 
mistake that the jews made when Jesus said that 
he would "destroy t/u's temple, and in three days 
raise it up." John 2:19. Here Christ spoke of 
himself, but the Jews never understood it so, and 
charged him with aiming to destroy the Jewish 
temple ; and even when he hung upon the cross, 
they said, "Ah, thou that destroyest the temple." 
These Jews had as good a right to believe that 
Christ's words in the text just quoted referred to 
the Jewish temple as any one has to believe that 
his words, " Upon this rock I will build my church," 
referred to Peter or any one else besides himself. 
And as the evangelists explain the meaning of the 
temple (John 2:21), so in many places, as we have 
shown, Christ is called the foundation of the church, 
which fully explains the meaning of Matt. 16 : 18. 
The comments of Dr. Adam Clarke, the distin- 
guished Methodist commentator, upon this scripture 
are worthy of being noted here. Dr. Clarke says : 
' ' Upon this very rock, . . . this true confession of 



PETER, THE ROCK. 5 I 

thine, — that I am the Messiah that am come to 
reveal and communicate the Hving God, that the 
dead, lost world may be saved, — upon this very 
rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to 
Ps. ii8 : 22, the stone which the builders rejected 
is become the Head-stone of the corner : and to 
Isa. 28 : 16, tehold, I lay a Stone in Zion for a 
foundation), will I build my church, . . . my as- 
sembly, or congregation, i. e. , of persons who are 
made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter 
is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident 
to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was 
only one of the builders in this sacred edifice (Eph. 
2 : 20), who himself tells us (with the rest of the 
believers) was built on this living foundation stone 
(i Peter 2:4, 5) ; therefore Jesus Christ did not 
say. On thee, Pete?^, will I build my church, but 
changes immediately the expression, and says, Upo?t 
that very rock, ... to show that he neither ad- 
dressed Peter or any other of the apostles. So the 
supremacy of Peter and the infallibility of the 
Church of Rome must be sought in some other 
scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in 
this." 

In further support of this idea, we call atten- 
tion to the following fact : In the original, two 
different words are used in this passage for " Peter" 
and the ''rock. " The first is petros, which means 
" a stone, " involving the idea of a small and movable 
stone, and which alone is used for a personal proper 



52 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

noun ; while the second is pctra, a noun in the femi- 
nine gender, which is the word used to designate 
a sohd, unmovable mass of rock, such as that to 
which Christ is compared by himself and other 
sacred writers, as we have already noticed. 

It is not a necessary inference that the power to 
bind and loose was signified by the gift of the keys. 
To prove this, it is sufficient to say that the power 
to bind and loose, or in other words, to forgive and 
condemn, was also bestowed upon all the apostles 
and upon the church. If it could thus be bestowed 
upon others than Peter, without any reference to 
the keys, why should any one conclude that the 
bestowal of the power upon Peter to bind and loose, 
was dependent upon the keys, or that it was repre- 
sented by the keys } Two statements were made 
to Peter. The first was, "I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and the second, 
" Whatsover thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These are 
two co-ordinate statements. The second does not 
depend upon the first ; in other words, the meaning 
is not that he gave him the keys in order that he 
might bind and loose. The power to bind and 
loose, or to forgive sins, was bestowed upon all the 
apostles. The keys evidently suggest and prophesy 
some particular phase of Peter s work in the min- 
istry. What was that work } — Peter acted a very 
prominent part in the gospel ministry. On the day 



PETER, THE ROCK. 53 

of Pentecost he was the chief speaker, and three 
thousand souls were converted at that time. When, 
under his preaching, thousands were pricked in 
the heart, and said, "Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?" Peter said, "Repent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2 : 37, 38. 
In thus proclaiming the word of life, and inviting 
the people to Christ, telling them in an authorita- 
tive manner what the}^ must do to be saved, Peter 
actually opened the kingdom of heaven to men. 
The same thing was repeated a few days later, 
when five thousand were converted in one day. 
Acts 3 ; 4 : 4. Peter was also instrumental in first 
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Acts 10 ; 
15:7. It was eminently fitting that to him who 
had made the bold declaration, "Thou art the 
Christ," should be promised the privilege of bring- 
ing many others to make the same confession. 

There is enough in these circumstances to fulfil 
all of Christ's words to Peter upon this occasion. 
This, we contend, is a much more reasonable con- 
clusion to arrive at than that Christ bestowed upon 
Peter the headship of the church, or that the 
church was to be established upon Peter. There 
is no evidence that whatever power or grace was 
represented by the keys was to be transmitted from 
Peter to any other person. The gift could only be 
exercised by Peter himself, and while he was on 



54-' THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

the earth. *' Whatsoever thou shalt bind on cartJi 
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou 
shalt loose on cartJi shall be loosed in heaven." No 
matter what that power or gift was, it surely ceased 
to be operative at the death of Peter. 

We have now examined all the texts that are 
used to teach the supremacy of Peter, and have 
found them utterly destitute of any proof for this 
theory. We have found that the church does not 
rest upon Peter, but that it rests upon the Rock 
Christ Jesus. This is in harmony with the Scrip- 
tures, and also with our innate common sense, 
which rebels at the thought of a church established 
upon a man. 



CHAPTER IV. 



INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPERIORITY 
OF JOHN AND PAUL. 

SINCE the whole theory of Peter's supremacy as 
far as the Scriptures are concerned, is built upon 
inferences, it may be proper to notice a few scrip- 
tures from which inferences of a similar character 
might be drawn, for at least two other apostles. 
Not that we hold that they zvcre supreme, but 
simply to show that it is easy to draw inferences. 
It will be remembered by the reader that the claim 
is made that Christ showed a "marked preference" 
for Peter, and that when he pronounced a blessing 
upon Peter, he was "alone blessed." With that 
position in mind, let us examine the following texts : 
"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of 
his disciples, whom Jesus loved." John 13:23. 
Can it be that this "loved" disciple is Peter, and 
that here is another evidence of Christ's preference 
for him } The following verse proves that it is 
not Peter. Further, turn to John 20 : 2: "Then 
she runneth and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the 
other disciple, whom Jesus loved." No, Peter is 
not the beloved one. Peter is mentioned, but it is 
the "other" disciple whom Jesus loved. 

[551 



56 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

By referring to John 2 i : 20-24 we learn that this 
disciple whom Jesus loved was John. So )ohn was 
the "beloved disciple." This is more than infer- 
ential as showing preference ; it is a plain state- 
ment of preference. It is argued because Christ 
said to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon," that he 
was "alone blessed." Now, by similar reasoning, 
we might conclude that when the evangelist speaks 
of John as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," he 
was "alone loved," which would certainly be a 
strong proof of Christ's preference for him ; for to 
say that one is loved is to express the strongest 
possible preference. Here is, therefore, far better 
ground upon which to base a claim that Christ ex- 
pressed a preference for John, than can be found 
to show that he ever expressed such a preference 
for Peter. 

Another evidence of Christ's preference for John 
may be found in John 19 : 25-27. Jesus was ex- 
piring upon the cross. Peter *had lied and appeared 
not upon the scene. A few women, including the 
mother of Jesus, and the "beloved disciple" stood 
near the cross. "When Jesus therefore saw his 
mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, 
he saith unto his mother. Woman, behold thy son ! 
Then saith he to the disciple. Behold thy mother ! 
And from that hour that disciple took her unto his 
own home." Here is another strong evidence of 
Jesus' preference for John. In dying, he committed 
his mother to John's care. What greater proof 




Christ on the Cross, Committing His Mother 
TO John. John 19:25-27. 



INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE. 57 

could he give of his preference for John and his 
faith in the perfection of his character ? If such 
evidence as is here presented in favor of Christ's 
preference for John, could be found for Peter, with 
what avidity would it be seized upon as evidence 
of Christ's preference for Peter, and a token of his 
supremacy ! 

The history of the apostle Paul may also be ex- 
amined upon this question. While he was not one 
of the original twelve apostles, if we may believe 
his testimony, he was, nevertheless, not a ' ' whit 
behind the very chief est of the apostles." 2 Cor. 
II : 15. That he was fully equal to Peter may be 
gathered from an encounter which he had with him 
at Antioch. '* But when Peter was come to Anti- 
och, I withstood him to the face, because he was to 
be blamed." Gal. 2:11. It is claimed that at this 
very time Peter was the infallible head of the church; 
but here in a discussion involving the question 
whether men were to be justified by faith in Christ 
or by the works of the law, Paul withstood him to 
the face, and administered to him a sharp rebuke, 
and that "before them all." Verse 14. What ground 
is here, not only for an inference, but for an argu- 
ment for Paul's supremacy ! And how the claim 
for the supremacy of Peter fades away at this spec- 
tacle of the great apostle to the Gentiles reproving 
him and setting him right in regard to an important 
doctrine in the presence of many brethren! We 
make no claim for Paul's supremacy, but this 



58 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

occurrence shows that Peter was neither infalhble 
nor supreme. It further emphasizes the fact that 
Christ is the head of the church, and that he only 
is supreme. Of this he himself testified, "One is 
your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren." 
Matt. 23:8. Again, Paul, naming the officers that 
God has set in the church, does not say, "First 
a pope, or primate," but he says, "First apostles, 
secondarily prophets," etc. (i Cor. 12:28), which 
is conclusive proof that the office of a primate was 
unknown in the apostolic church. 

The opinion quite generally prevails that the 
contention between Paul and Peter at Antioch, to 
which Paul alludes in his letter to the Galatians, 
occurred subsequently to the council at Jerusalem, 
but we . shall take the position that it preceded 
the council and led to it. The only reason that 
can be found to support this theor}-, is that Paul 
alludes to this dispute with Peter after having 
spoken of the council. This is very weak proof. 
If it were the universal custom of the sacred writers 
to refer to past events in the regular order of their 
occurrence, this might be conclusive evidence ; but 
every one should know that such is not the case. 
To the author s mmd, Paul, in verse 1 1 of Gala- 
tians 2, abruptly goes back in the narrative to the 
contention which led to the council which he is 
describing. In Acts 1 5 is a statement that the 
"certain men" who came down from Judea to 
Antioch caused so much trouble that there was 



INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE. 59 

**no small dissension and disputation." In Gala- 
tians 2 we learn that after "certain came from 
James" (which would be -from Judea, as James 
lived in Jerusalem), Peter and Paul had a sharp 
contention. This certainly looks like another state- 
ment of the same occurrence. The council was 
held . on account of the dissension recorded in 
Acts I 5 ; and if, as the writer holds, the account in 
Acts 1 5 by Luke, and the one in Galatians 2 by 
Paul, are different renderings of the same dispute, 
then this contention between Paul and Peter and 
some others was the cause of the first Christian 
council, and preceded it. The author cannot be- 
lieve that Peter, after taking a prominent part in, 
and consenting to, the decisions of the council at 
which the whole status of the Gentiles was squarely 
settled, would go down to Antioch, and so deny 
the principles established by the council, whose 
action he himself had sanctioned, as to call forth 
such a rebuke from the apostle Paul. This would 
place Peter in a worse light than we would wish 
to see him. 

Moreover, at this council it was decided that 
Peter, James, and John should labor for the "cir- 
cumcision," and Paul and Barnabas for the Gen- 
tiles. Gal. 2 : 9. This would absolutely prohibit 
Peter from going to Antioch, which was a dis- 
tinctively Gentile city, and at that time the center 
of the gospel work for the Gentiles. Peter had 
probably been in Corinth, a Qentile city, and 



6o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

trouble followed. i Cor. i : 2. He went to An- 
tioch, and a great contention arose there between 
him and Paul. The council, having settled the 
difficulties, thought it the part of wisdom to allow 
each laborer to have his own field, that further 
discussions of this nature might be avoided. These 
seem sufficient reasons for placing the contention 
between Peter and Paul previous to the council, 
and not after, as thought by some. 



CHAPTER V. 



EXAMINATION OF PETER^S LETTERS. 

IN examining the question of Peter's supremacy, 
there is another very important avenue of infor- 
mation open to us. The Scriptures contain two 
letters written by the apostle Peter. According to 
the general belief, these letters were written in the 
years A. D. 60 and 66 respectively. They were 
therefore written about thirty years after the as- 
cension of Christ, and at a time when Peter must 
have been well established in the primacy, as the 
vicegerent of Christ, if he ever held that position. 
It is probable that the first letter was written from 
Babylon (i Peter 5 : 13), as the subscription on the 
most ancient manuscripts have the words, * ' Writ- 
ten from Babylon," as seen in the common versions. 
Many Romanists, in their anxiety to prove that 
Peter was at Rome, contend that this "Babylon" 
means Rome ! There is no good reason for such a 
supposition. As there is nothing mystical or sym- 
bolical in Peter's letters, which are simply pastoral 
epistles like those of Paul, it may be asked, If he 
meant Rome, why did he not say Rome ? Cer- 
tainly the literal city of Rome was never called 

5 ■ [6'] 



62 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Babylon. Therefore we must conclude that in the 
subscription which Peter appended to his letter, 
he gave the place of writing with all the literal- 
ness which would attach to any letter purporting to 
give the place of writing. Moreover Paul wrote sev- 
eral letters from Rome, and he did not call Rome 
Babylon, but Rome. And if Peter would call the 
city of Rome Babylon, why should not Paul do the 
same ? 

In harmony with the Catholic idea that the word 
"Babylon," as used in this letter, means Rome, 
some manuscripts have written on them, " Written 
from Rome," but no manuscripts written earlier 
than the thirteenth century have it this way. 
At that time it was desired to prove that Peter had 
been at Rome, and to prove this the word ' ' Baby- 
lon" was interpreted to mean Rome. 

There can be no reasonable doubt that by Babylon 
is meant Babylon in Assyria, which was the seat of 
the dispersed Jews. So it is evident that we must 
take the word " Babylon," as used in this letter, 
with no spiritual or mystical meaning, but as the 
real name of a city or country, which was well 
known at that time. This would also indicate 
with a considerable degree of accuracy the location 
of Peter's labors. 

As Peter had a family before Christ called him 
(Luke 4 : 38), he must have been well advanced 
in years at the date of these epistles. In the year 
A. D. 64, Paul, being probably about Peter's age, 



EXAMINATION OF PETER's LETTERS. 63 

speaks of himself as " Paul the aged." Philemon 9. 
Hence, if Peter ever held the office of primate, the 
presumption would be that he held that office at 
the time these letters were written. We would 
therefore have good reason to expect that in one 
or both of these letters, which would be the first 
official utterances of the new primate, correspond- 
ing to the " encyclicals " of the popes, there would 
be such expressions as would justify the claim that 
he held the position of head of the church. Cer- 
tainly the first primate, in his first official utterance, 
should be explicit in defining his office and author- 
ity, in order that no question regarding the primacy 
should arise to make confusion and division in the 
church. 

With this presumable necessity in mind, let us 
examine the letters of Peter to see if we can find 
evidences of his primacy at the time of his writing. 
The opening w^ords of his first letter are not such 
as would impress the reader that Peter understood 
that he held any kind of primacy among the 
apostles. He begins his letter in a very simple 
and unostentatious manner quite similar to the 
way in which the apostle Paul commences his 
letters. " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," are 
the simple and straightforward introductory words 
of his first letter. He does not begin by saying, 
"Peter, the primate," or anything of the kind. He 
is only one of the apostles, laboring conjointly with 
his brethren for the spread of the gospel of Christ. 



64 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

The letter has a local application; it is addressed 
to the "strangers scattered throughout Pontus, 
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. " Those 
to whom the letter was addressed were evidently 
suffering persecution (i Peter i : 6), which coming 
to Peter's knowledge, led him to write them a com- 
forting letter. No hint of his supremacy, or that 
the church was established upon him, is anywhere 
found in the letter ; but Christ is spoken of as the 
' ' living stone " upon which the spiritual house of 
God is being built. i Peter 2 : 4-6. Again, in 
verse 25 of the same chapter, he refers to Christ 
as " the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls," a posi- 
tion which the popes now claim to hold, but which 
Peter evidently never claimed for himself. 

The last chapter of this letter contains some very 
remarkable statements, which are directly opposed 
to the idea of the supremacy of Peter. Thus, he 
says : * ' The elders which are among you I exhort, 
who am also an elder, and a witness of the suffer- 
ings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that 
shall be revealed : feed the flock of God which is 
among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by 
constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but 
of a ready mind : neither as being lords over 
God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." 
I Peter 5 : 1-3. 

In these remarkable words, Peter not only places 
himself upon a level with the other apostles, but 
he calls himself an elder, or ' ' presbyter " (the 



EXAMINATION OF PETER'S LETTERS. 65 

original word means a fellow elder), which shows 
that Peter did not regard himself as occupying 
any higher place than the other presbyters in the 
church. Notice, also, his directions in regard to 
authority. "Neither as being lords over God's 
heritage." How different in spirit this is from the 
doctrine of the absolute authority of the priests, 
bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and pope of the 
Roman Catholic Church! Their authority is held 
to be supreme. Each inferior must receive without 
questioning what his superior shall dictate ; but 
Peter, who is reputed to have been the first pope, 
taught no such doctrine. On the contrary, he 
bears a decided testimony against there being any 
lordship in the church. Nothing, then, can be 
found in the first encyclical (.'') favoring the idea 
of Peter's supremacy, but much to controvert that 
doctrine. 

The second letter of Peter, supposed to be the 
second encyclical, in its opening sentence is quite 
similar to that of the first. He calls himself "a 
servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ." It is 
dedicated "to them that have obtained like pre- 
cious faith." It is then directed to all true Chris- 
tians. In a letter addressed to all Christians in all 
ages, written by the man upon whom the church 
was established, and who was the head of the 
church at the time of the writing, there certainly 
should not be found wanting a statement of the au- 
thority and supremacy of the writer, for the bene- 



66 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

fit of the universal church throughout the ages. 
Nothing of the kind, however, is here given ; and 
reading the letter with the greatest care, we are un- 
able to find a hint of anything looking toward the 
supremacy of Peter. But we are able to find, even 
in this letter, evidence of the co-ordinate power and 
authority of all the apostles. This appears in 
chapter 3. He tells them that he wishes to stir up 
their pure minds by way of remembrance, **that 
they may be mindful of the words which were 
spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the 
commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and 
Saviour." Here Peter, like Paul (Eph. 2:20), 
places all the apostles, of whom he was one, on 
an absolute equality. He does not place himself 
above his fellows, but speaks of the command- 
ments, 7wt of himself, but '*of us the apostles of 
the Lord and Saviour." Like Paul, he also refers 
to the prophets. In what more striking way could 
he show that he claimed no supremacy over the 
other apostles .'^ 

One more reference, and the discussion of these 
supposed encyclicals will be brought to a close. In 
chapter 3, verses 15, 16, Peter refers to *'our 
beloved brother Paul," and to the wisdom given to 
him, which was manifest in "all his epistles," and 
calls Paul's letters "scriptures," indicating the high 
estimation in which he held them. This is evi- 
dence that Peter felt no hardness against Paul 
because of the stern rebuke which the latter had 



EXAMINATION OF PETER's LETTERS. 6/ 

administered to him ; that he had received it as 
from a "beloved brother," and had profited by it. 
Nothing can be found in the Scriptures to indicate 
that Paul was ever reproved by Peter or v^as in- 
structed by him in any way. Indeed Paul testifies 
that at the time of the council at Jerusalem, "they 
who seemed to be somewhat in conference added 
nothing to me." Gal. 2 : 6. Paul was very inde- 
pendent in his gospel work. Thus he said : ' ' But 
I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was 
preached of me is not after man. For I neither 
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by 
the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i : ii, 12. 
The Lord chose Paul and directly imparted to him 
the gospel by revelation. The wisdom of Paul's 
writings, which Peter commends, was from the 
Lord. 

Thus having carefully scanned both of the letters 
of the apostle Peter, we are unable to discover the 
least proof that he held any position above the 
other apostles ; but we find several strong evidences 
that Peter regarded himself as one of the apostles, 
with authority and supremacy only co-ordinate to 
that held by each of the others, including later 
apostles, such as Paul. 



CHAPTER VL 



PETER^S PART IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 

I^HE introduction of the gospel among the Gen- 
tiles and their reception of the same, led to a 
controversy in the church which resulted in the 
convention of the first Christian council at Jerusa- 
lem, in the year A. d. 51. Christ had endeavored 
to lead the minds of his disciples to the work that 
must be done for the Gentiles. He had plainly 
declared : "Other sheep I have, which are not of 
this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall 
hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and 
one shepherd." John 10 : 16. To the unbelieving- 
people of Israel, he said, "Therefore say I unto 
you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, 
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof." Matt. 21 : 43. The disciples were slow 
to see that the Gentiles were to have a part in the 
blessings of the gospel ; and even after the resurrec- 
tion of Christ and the commission to "preach the 
gospel to every creature," some who were driven 
from Jerusalem by the "persecution that arose 
about Stephen," and scattered abroad, preached 
"to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11 : 19. 
[ 68 ] 



PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 69 

So strong was the Jewish national prejudice against 
the Gentiles that the Lord in mercy to the Gen- 
tiles, and to hasten on the work of grace among 
them, gave a special revelation to teach his church 
the great truth enunciated by Paul, ' ' that the 
Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same 
body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the 
gospel." Eph. 3 : 6. To make the truth of the sal- 
vation of the Gentiles known to the disciples, Cor- 
nelius, a Roman officer, a proselyte to the Jewish 
religion, and a devout man, was ordered by an 
angel to send for Peter, who was in a neighboring 
city : and at the same time, Peter upon the house- 
top saw a vision, the import of which was that he 
must not "call any man common or unclean." 
He was then directed to the house of Cornelius 
to teach him and his friends the gospel of Christ. 
The Holy Ghost accompanying the word, placed 
upon it the divine approbation ; and Peter, under 
the influence of the Spirit of God, commanded 
that these Gentile converts should be baptized. 

But the majority of the disciples were not at that 
time prepared for so radical a change. As soon, 
therefore, as Peter returned to Jerusalem, they 
charged him with visiting and eating with those 
who were uncircumcised. Peter explained the 
matter so that they were apparently satisfied, and 
they ' ' glorified God, saying, Then hath God also 
to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." 
Acts II : 1 8. Their idea, however, at this time, 



70 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

of the salvation of the Gentiles, was that they 
should not only believe on Jesus Christ, but in 
order to be saved, they must also observe the 
ceremonies of the Jewish law, including the rite 
of circumcision. The question appears to have 
slumbered until about twelve years later, when the 
conversion of large numbers of Gentiles under the 
labors of Paul and Barnabas brought the matter 
once more in a specific manner before the church. 
The direct cause of the rupture which led to a 
discussion and settlement of this question, was the 
act of certain Jewish brethren of Jerusalem, who 
while willing to concede that the gospel was for the 
Gentiles as well as for the Jews, as was evinced by 
Cornelius's experience and Peter's vision, thought it 
necessary that they should conform to the cere- 
monies of the Jewish law ; and as circumcision had 
been the rite by which a Jew was dedicated to 
God, it seemed to them that the Gentile converts 
to Christ should also submit to that ordinance. 
Consequently, when the church at Antioch became 
so numerous that it began to attract attention as 
the center of the work for the Gentiles, the breth- 
ren at Jerusalem were alarmed, * ' and certain men 
which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, 
and said, Except ye be circumcised after the man- 
ner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Acts 15:1. It 
appears that Peter was at Antioch when these 
brethren came, and that he joined with them in 
insisting that the Gentiles should be circumcised. 



PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. /I 

Paul would not listen for a moment to such a 
proposition. He opposed it with all his might. 

Thus Paul testifies : ' ' But when Peter was 
come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, 
because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:11. We 
have before noticed this text, but we now propose 
to carry the question which led to this dispute, 
to its final settlement, with the purpose of dis- 
covering the bearing it has upon the question of 
Peter's supremacy. The charge which Paul makes 
against Peter, is that while Peter had accepted, 
and had even sanctioned the baptism of Gentile 
converts, and had eaten and drunk with them, yet 
when he saw that many of his Jewish brethren 
were grieved because of it, ' ' he withdrew and 
separated himself, fearing them which were of the 
circumcision." Gal. 2:12. This event, which in 
itself is of great interest to every Christian, be- 
comes much more so when studied in connection 
with the topic we are considering. 

Here was the head (.'') of the church erring so 
grievously that Paul, a later apostle and not one of 
the original twelve, was obliged to rebuke him. 
That Peter deserved this rebuke is very evident 
from Paul's statement of the case. "And the 
other Jews dissembled likewise with him [Peter] ; 
insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with 
their dissimulation." 

The word " dissemble" is thus defined by Web- 
ster : ' ' To conceal the real fact, motives, inten- 



72 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

tion, or sentiments ; to act the hypocrite." This is 
what Peter did at the time he is claimed to have 
been the infaUible- head of the church! Paul re- 
buked this conduct in the following vigorous lan- 
guage : ' ' But when I saw that they walked not 
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I 
said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a 
Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not 
as do the Jews [which he had done at the time of 
the conversion of Cornelius, when he ate and drank 
with them], why compellest thou the Gentiles to 
live as do the Jews ? We who are Jews by nature, 
and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a 
man is not justified by the works of the law, but 
by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed 
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the 
faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law : 
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
fied." Gal. 2 : 14-16. 

The fact that Peter was a dissembler, and was 
thus publicly rebuked by Paul, is very damaging 
both to the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and 
to the idea of his infallibility. It shows that the 
claim is nothing less than preposterous assumption. 
The question was now transferred from Antioch to 
Jerusalem. "When therefore Paul and Barnabas 
had no small dissension and disputation with them 
[Peter and those who came from Jerusalem], they 
[the church at Antioch] determined that Paul and 
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up 



PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 73 

to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this 
question." Acts 15:2. 

This appeal to the apostles and elders militates 
again very seriously against the idea of Peter's su- 
premac}^ Here was Peter, the primate of the 
church, if we may believe what is claimed for him, 
with all power and authority to settle disputes in 
regard to religion, as did Christ, whose vicegerent 
he had become , and yet his position was manifestly 
so contrary to the gospel revealed by Christ to 
Paul, that Paul rebuked Peter; but finding even 
then that the matter was not settled, it was referred 
to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. This 
clearly shows that the authority of the church was 
believed to repose in the conclave of apostles and 
elders rather than in Peter. It is urged against 
Luther by the Catholic Church (see ' ' Doctrinal 
Catechism," p. 20), that he appealed from a deci- 
sion of the pope to a general council. But Paul 
rebuked Peter, not recognizing him as any particu- 
lar authority, certainly not as the infallible head 
of the church, and then appealed to the council 
of the apostles and elders for a final settlement of 
the question. 

In harmony with the determination to refer this 
question to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, 
Paul and Barnabas and some others went up from 
Antioch to that city. Now we come to a very im- 
portant point in the consideration of the supremacy. 
If Peter was the head of the church, would he not 



74 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

preside at this, the first Christian council ? Not 
that the person presiding must necessarily hold 
greater authority than the others ; but if there zvas 
one of their number to whom all authority was 
given, even such as was possessed by Christ him- 
self, so that he was Christ's vicegerent in the 
church, then certainly he, and he only, should pre- 
side, and render the final decision of the council. 
Those who hold the idea of the supremacy of Peter, 
recognize this point, and hence they make a tre- 
mendous effort to make it appear, in the follow^- 
ing ingenious manner, that Peter presided at this 
council: "Question: Did Peter act as presiding 
teacher among the apostles.-^ Answer : Yes ; he 
decided, in the first Council at Jerusalem by the 
Apostles, that the Chiistians should not be sub- 
jected to the Jewish rite of circumcision ; St. Paul, 
though an Apostle, did not venture to decide upon 
it. 'Men brethren,' said Peter, 'you know that in 
former days God niade cJioice among lis, that by 
my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of 
the gospel ; ' and when Peter had made an end of 
speaking, ' all t/ie multitude Jicld tJieir peace ;' and 
even James himself, who was bishop of Jerusa- 
lem, where the Apostles were assembled, rose only 
to repeat St. Peter's decision, and to acquiesce 
in it."^ Acts 15. The quotations of Scripture in 
this extract are from the Vulgate, the authorized 
Catholic Version, which does not differ materially 
from other translations. 

1 " Doctrinal Catechism," pp. 158, 159. 



PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 75 

If the reader will compare this statement from 
the "Doctrinal Catechism" with the actual facts, 
as recorded in the Scriptures, either as given in the 
Vulgate, or in the King James Version, he cannot 
fail to see that this attempt to prove that Peter 
presided at the council is nothing but the baldest 
kind of assumption, without one particle of proof 
to sustain it. Peter was not the last speaker ; he 
was followed by Paul and Barnabas. Acts 15 : 12. 
It is not customary to decide a question until all 
sides are heard and the discussion is ended. The 
decision is always rendered last of all. Peter had 
evidently profited by the sharp rebuke which Paul 
had administered to him, and having recovered 
himself from the influence of those whom he had 
feared, was now arrayed upon the same side of the 
controversy as the apostle to the Gentiles. The 
Gentiles having first heard the gospel through him, 
it was very proper for Peter to make a statement of 
the matter and give his opinion relative to what 
should be done. But Peter no more decided the 
question than a lawyer who makes a plea before a 
judge, holding the same view of the case that the 
judge does, decides the suit. 

Here must be pointed out the evidence of great 
unfairness in Scripture exegesis on the part of the 
' ' Doctrinal Catechism. " The Catechism represents 
that "all the multitude held their peace," follow- 
ing Peter's speech, as though his words settled the 
matter, but the quotation as given in the ' ' Poq- 
6 



'j6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

trinal Catechism" leaves the sentence incomplete ; 
and the completion of the sentence from the Scrip- 
tures, if they had been correctly and fully quoted, 
would have completely disproved this proposition. 
I will also quote from the Vulgate, finishing the 
sentence left incomplete in the Catechism. "And 
all the multitude held their peace : and gave ear 
to Barnabas and Paul relating what great signs 
and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles 
by them. " So Paul and Barnabas both spoke after 
Peter had finished, and their descriptions of what 
God had wrought through their ministry must have 
been a powerful argument affecting the decision of 
the case. Then comes the decision given by James. 
To say that Peter gave the decision, and that 
James simply acquiesced in it, is the veriest non- 
sense, when we consider the whole controversy, the 
description of the council, the time of speaking, and 
the words of James. James refers to Simon's speech, 
calling him by his original name, Peter ; quotes the 
prophets as authority for what he is about to say, 
and then declares: "Wherefore I judge that they, 
who from among the Gentiles are converted to 
God, are not to be disquieted." (Vulgate.) Notice 
the formality of this decision. James, the last 
speaker, refers to authorities, much as a judge 
appeals to the law, and then sa3^s, ' ' Wherefore I 
judge." In the English Version it reads, "My 
sentence is," etc. The Greek word here rendered 
in the Vulgate "judge " and in the English Versiorj 



PETER IN THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. J J 

** sentence," has the meaning of a decision of a 
king or emperor. The record of the council does 
not state whether there was any vote upon the 
question. Probably there was not ; but there was 
certainly unanimity at the least ; and the statement 
of the decision rendered went out under the au- 
thority of all the apostles and elders. The writing 
which was given to Barnabas and Paul to take 
back to the church at Antioch and the other Gen- 
tile churches under their charge, had this begin- 
ning : ' ' The apostles and elders and brethren 
send greeting." Acts 15 : 23. So the decision was 
the expression, not of one apostle merely, nor of all 
the apostles alone, but of all the apostles, elders, 
and brethren. The church was a pure republic in 
which the will of the whole body of believers con- 
stituted the highest authority. 

A few quotations from this letter will show this to 
be true : "It seemed good unto us, being assembled 
with one accord," and, "for it seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost, and to us, " and, ' ' as they went through 
the cities, they delivered them the decrees [copies 
of the decision] for to keep, that were ordained of 
the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." 
Acts 15:25, 28; 16: 4. These references are suf- 
ficient evidence that the decision was sent out to 
the Gentile churches as the expression of the mind 
of all the apostles and elders, Peter, of course, 
acting with the rest, but with no more authority 
than any other apostle, 



78 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

We have now traced the history of Peter from 
the time he is first introduced into the Scripture 
narrative until the last mention made of him in 
the sacred volume, giving especial attention to 
every text that is claimed to prove his supremacy, 
and we have been unable to find substantial proof 
that Peter held any such position, either before or 
subsequent to the resurrection of Christ. His own 
letters, written at a time when it is claimed that 
he was fully established in the primacy, afford no 
evidence that he was so honored, but they fur- 
nish much proof to the contrary. And having 
examined with care the first Christian council, 
where Peter makes his last appearance in the 
scripture narration, in the year A. d. 51, we find 
that James presided at that council, and that 
Peter occupied no higher place than any other 
apostle. 



CHAPTER VIL 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? 

BEFORE trying to ascertain where the idea of 
the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and con- 
sequently of Peter's supremacy as the first of this 
hne of bishops, first gained credence, we wish to 
examine the Scriptures further to see if we can find 
any evidence that Peter was ever the primate of 
Rome, or even that he was ever there. According 
to the doctrine of the Cathohc Church, Peter was not 
only in Rome, but he was also actually established 
there as the bishop of Rome and primate of the 
universal Church. The importance of this doctrine 
from the standpoint of the Catholic Church is well 
set forth by Professor Clement M. Butler, in a re- 
ply to an argument made by Cardinal Manning, in 
the following language : * ' To the Romanist it is 
essential that he should prove that St. Peter pre- 
sided over the Church of Rome. On that assumed 
fact is erected the most important doctrine — next 
to that of salvation by the death of Christ — ever 
proclaimed by man. If true, it is a truth on which 
the salvation of myriads rests. If false, it is a por- 
tentous falsehood, the evil results of which no 

[79] 



8o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

man can conceive. It rests' on the fact that St. 
Peter was in Rome. If he was not there, it falls 
to the ground a convicted and dead lie. Now it 
will be admitted that such a fact should have proof 
that is unimpeachable, abundant, and undoubted."^ 

The above statement by Professor Butler is w^ell 
made. A fact so important as this, if fact it be, 
should not be obliged to depend for proof on infer- 
ence, conjecture, and tradition. There should be 
a plain statement in support of it in some part of 
the Scriptures. Again : If Peter ever was in Rome, 
and there was no direct statement to this effect, 
then there would very likely be an allusion to it in 
some of Peter's or Paul's letters. This presump- 
tion is particularly plausible in regard to Paul's 
letters, many of which were written from Rome. 
What, then, are the Scriptural evidences that Peter 
was ever at Rome ? — There are none whatever. 

Peter was in Jerusalem three years after Paul's 
conversion. Gal. i : i8. After Herod's unsuccess- 
ful attempt to kill Peter (Acts 12), he does not 
reappear in the record until the council at Jerusa- 
lem, seven years later. At some time previous to 
A. D. 59, he had probably been at Corinth. i Cor. 
1:12. He also was at Antioch, as we have seen, 
just before the council at Jerusalem. 

Peter's first letter indicates that his field of la- 
bor had been in Pontus, Cappadocia, Asja, and 
Bithynia. The same letter was evidently written 

1 " St. Paul in Rome," p. 267. 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 8 1 

from Babylon in Assyria. This is all the direct evi- 
dence there is of the location of Peter's labors. 
There is no proof in the Scriptures that he ever went 
to Rome. In the absence of direct proof, the infer- 
ential evidence that he went to' Rome should be 
very strong, or else, so far as the Scriptures are 
concerned, we should reject it as a tradition of 
doubtful origin. 

Rome was a pagan city, and the great center of 
the heathen world. The principal language spoken 
there was the Latin, which tongue it is very prob- 
able that Peter, unless under the especial inspira- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, as on the day of Pentecost, 
was unable to speak. The evidences are decidedly 
against his having been at Rome before the council 
at Jerusalem ; and at that council it was decided 
that the ministry of the gospel to the circumcision 
should be committed to Peter, James, and John, 
and that of the uncircumcision to Paul. Accord- 
ingly it was so arranged that James, Peter, and 
John were to labor especially for the Jews, and 
Paul and Barnabas were to go among the heathen. 
Gal. 2 : 9. Such being the case, it is to be pre- 
sumed that Peter would not go to Rome after the 
council. This idea is corroborated by the words 
of Paul to the Romans, written A. d. 6o, in which 
he says that he is ready to preach the gospel to 
those who are in Rome (Rom. i : 15) ; and again 
in the same letter he says, " Yea, so have I strived 
to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, 



82 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

lest I should build upon another man's foundation : 
but as it is written, To whom he was not spoken 
of, they shall see : and they that have not heard 
shall understand. " Rom. 15:20, 21. This would 
be strange language to address to a church that 
had enjoyed the labors of the apostle Peter ; and it 
certainly cannot be reconciled with the idea that 
Peter was established there as the bishop of the 
church. 

That Peter had not been laboring at Rome at 
the time of the writing of this letter is further 
shown by the fact that the members of the church 
at Rome were largely composed of Gentiles, as 
will appear from reading Rom. 1:13 and 15 : 21. 
Further, how could Paul preach at Rome and not 
build on another man's foundation, if Peter had 
been there before him, had preached the gospel 
there, and was established as bishop of that city .'' 

There were " brethren " at Rome when Paul was 
taken there as a prisoner (Acts 28 : 15); and from 
the words of the Jews to Paul when he invited them 
into his lodgings (verses 17-22), it would appear 
that their ideas of Christianity were very vague, 
and obtained mostly from hearsay, which could 
not possibly have been the case if many of the 
Jews at Rome had embraced the gospel, or if Peter 
had preached there and was established there as 
bishop of Rome and primate of the church. In- 
deed, judging from Peter's well-known ability and 
impetuous nature, it is well nigh certain that if he 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 83 

had been in Rome, the people of the city, and 
especially the Jews, would have known all about 
Jesus of Nazareth and the gospel before Paul went 
there. It would be very strange, indeed, if the 
preaching of Paul in his own hired house (verses 
30, 31) should be mentioned, and the public labors 
of Peter, bishop of Rome and primate (?) of the 
church, should not even be alluded to. As a 
matter of fact, the whole letter of Paul to the 
Romans is based upon the assumption that the 
brethren in Rome were generally Gentile believers, 
and that they had not, at the time of this writing, 
heard the gospel proclaimed by an apostle of Christ. 

Again, at the close of the letter to the Romans, 
personal greetings are sent to twenty-four persons 
who are named, and to others who are mentioned 
as belonging to certain "households," but no 
greeting is sent to Peter. We must therefore 
regard the letter to the Romans, written by Paul 
in the year A. D. 60, as strong evidence that 
up to that time Peter had not been in Rome. 

Besides the letter to the Romans, which, as we 
have seen, throws much light upon the question of 
Peter's supremacy, the New Testament contains six 
letters written by the apostle Paul from Rome. 
These are the letters to the Galatians, Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, Colossians, the second letter to 
Timothy, and the letter to Philemon. These let- 
ters are generally believed to have been written 
between the years A. d. 58 and 65. But if Paul did 



84 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

not go to Rome before a. d. 63, and there is good 
reason for believing this, then all these letters 
must have been written after that time. We 
present these letters as evidence that Peter was 
not bishop of Rome at the time they were written. 
Here are six letters written from Rome by the 
apostle Paul, all of which were written during the 
declining years of Peter and Paul. The subject 
matter of these letters is the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
its principles, establishment, and government, — 
indeed, so much of the gospel is revealed in these 
letters that it seems as though the story would be 
only half told without them. Yet though all these 
letters were written from Rome, in the very days 
when, as believed by the Catholic Church, Peter 
was bishop there, his name is mentioned only once, 
— in the letter to the Galatians, where Paul tells 
of Peter's duplicity, and how he was compelled, 
for the sake of truth and the maintenance of the 
gospel, to withstand him to the face. This silence 
can be accounted for in but one of two ways : either 
Peter was not in Rome, or Paul allowed the diffi- 
culties which they had had in the past, and to 
which he alludes in the Galatian letter, to prevent 
him from mentioning Peter's name in a favorable 
manner. This latter supposition cannot for a 
moment be entertained, and hence the former 
conclusion must be adopted. More than this : in 
every one of these letters there are places where 
it would seem to be imperative to mention Peter 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? 85 

as being in Rome, if he were there. Take the 
letter to the Galatians, for instance. In that letter 
Peter is referred to and placed in anything but an 
enviable light. This letter was written some years 
after these difficulties were satisfactorily adjusted. 
Now if Peter was, at the very time of the writing 
of this letter, the bishop of Rome and primate of 
the church, how could Paul thus mention these 
difficulties, unless he in the same letter should in 
some way indicate that he had no intention of dis- 
paraging Peter, the bishop of Rome and universal 
primate ? It is evident that Paul, with all his 
knowledge, knew nothing of the primacy, or else 
he never would have written as he did. 

The letter to the Ephesians is supposed to have 
been written about a. d. 64. In this letter Paul 
takes especial pains to say that the church is ** built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." 
Eph. 2 : 20. Peter is not even named, and no 
especial prominence as a foundation is given to him. 
In this same letter Paul refers to those on whom 
especial gifts of position and responsibility in the 
church had been bestowed. Beginning with ' * apos- 
tles," which term includes the original twelve and 
also the later apostles, such as Paul himself, he 
enumerates, in all, five orders (Eph. 4 : 11) of im- 
portance in the church ; but no pope or primate is 
mentioned, — a great omission, surely, if the very 
city from which Paul wrote was the place of resi- 



S6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

dence of Peter the primate, a higher position than 
any of those named by Paul. Would a Catholic, 
writing from Rome at the present time, pretend to 
give the names of the positions of honor in the 
church from first to last, and not mention the 
pope ? Again, in the letter under consideration, 
Paul says that Christians by ' ' speaking the truth 
in love, may grow up into him [Christ not Peter] 
in all things, which is the head, even Christ." 
Verse 15. Finally, he asks the prayers of the 
Ephesian brethren that he may be able to declare 
the gospel in Rome, never referring to Peter as 
being there, and sends Tychicus to represent his 
condition, something which we should suppose 
would be the duty of the bishop of the church at 
Rome, considering the fact that Paul was a pris- 
oner. From these considerations we are confident 
that the letter to the Ephesians will ever stand as 
a proof that Peter was not in Rome at the time 
Paul wrote it, and moreover that he never was 
primate ; for no higher position than an apostle was 
recognized as existing in the church. 

The letter to the Philippians will next claim our 
attention. This letter was written about A. D. 64. 
It appears from a reading of the third chapter of 
that letter, that Paul, at some previous time, had 
sent Epaphroditus, his "companion in labor" 
(Phil. 2:25), to Philippi ; that Epaphroditus had 
been very ill, and that this illness was caused by a 
failure on the part of the church at Philippi to do 



c 

c/: 



pin 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 8/ 



t 



for him what they should have done. It is quite 
hkely that Epaphroditus overworked and became 
ill, and that this work was undertaken to supply 
Paul with the necessaries of life while in prison. 
That Paul's friends were allowed to wait on him is 
evident from 2 Tim. i : i6. At the time of writing 
this letter, he had received gifts, probably money, 
from the church at Philippi (Phil. 4 : 10-18), and 
felt comforted with the thought that his children in 
the gospel still had a tender care foi; him. 

We note these facts, because, unimportant as 
they seem to be in themselves, they have a distinct 
bearing upon the question as to whether Peter was 
the bishop of Rome at that time. Here is the 
great apostle to the Gentiles in prison, supported 
largely by the self-sacrificing labors of Epaphrodi- 
tus, or by the voluntary contributions of the breth- 
ren of the distant church at Philippi. Now, if 
Peter was the bishop of Rome, and primate of the 
church, it would seem that by his influence some- 
thing would have been done for Paul's comfort ; 
but there is no evidence that such was the fact. 
His love for Paul as a "beloved brother " would 
certainly have led to this ; but since we read of 
nothing of the kind, justice to Peter demands the 
conclusion that he was where Paul's sufferings were 
to him a thing unknown. Indeed, the medium of 
communication in that day, entirely by private 
messenger, was so expensive and difficult that it is 
very probable that Peter and Paul, years before 



88 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

they died, knew very little of each other's move- 
ments or condition. 

We will now examine the letter to the Colos- 
sians, to see what bearing it may have upon the 
question of the primacy of Peter and his sup- 
posed position as bishop of Rome at that time. 
This letter is believed to have been written in a. d. 
64, the same year as the letter to the Philippians. 
Passing over to the last chapter of the letter, Paul 
speaks of sending Tychicus that the brethren 
of Colosse might know his condition, and that 
by the same means he might know their welfare. 
Col. 4:7, 8. Everything in the letter indicates 
that Paul, although a prisoner, was the chief man 
among the brethren at Rome, and that his brethren 
were at his service, going or coming as his judg- 
ment should suggest or his needs require. 

Especial attention is now directed to verses 10 
and II, in which we read these words: " x\ristar- 
chus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, 
sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received 
commandments : if he come unto you, receive him ;) 
and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the 
circumcision. These only are my fellow workers 
unto the kingdom of God, which have been a com- 
fort unto me." Here is a truly remarkable state- 
ment. Three men, who like Paul were Jews of 
the circumcision, are mentioned as having labored 
for Christ in Rome, and Paul declares that of the 
brethren of the circurncision these only were a 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 89 

comfort to him. But what about Peter, the bishop 
of Rome and primate of the church ? He being 
certainly excluded, we are charitable enough to be- 
lieve that this was because he was not there at all. 
Epaphras, Luke, and Demas also send greetings 
to the church at Thessalonica, but there is no 
message from Peter. The letter of Paul to the 
church at Colosse may therefore be regarded as 
strong evidence that Peter was not at Rome when 
it was written. 

Shortly after Paul wrote the letter to the church 
at Colosse, Timothy seems to have taken his depar- 
ture to look after the churches. Paul still con- 
tinued a prisoner, and the second letter to Timothy 
was written in the year A. d. 66, about a year after 
the letter to the Colossians was written. Does this 
letter throw any light upon the subject we are con- 
sidering .? In verse 1 5 of chapter i , Paul, referring 
to those who had turned away from him adds, 
* ' The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiph- 
orus ; for he oft refreshed me, and was not 
ashamed of my chain : but when he was in Rome, 
he sought me out very diligently, and found me. " 
Verses 16, 17. Here another light is turned upon 
Paul's experience in Rome. It would appear that 
some of the brethren were ashamed of Paul the 
''prisoner," and for fear of being known as his 
fellow Christian, they neglected to visit him. 
Onesiphorus was not that kind of Christian. He 
was not ashamed to associate with Paul the pris- 

7 



90 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

oner. It is probable, from the record, that he was 
not long in Rome ; but when he was in the city, he 
came often to the prison to see Paul, and to bring 
to him food and clothing and such other things 
as he needed ; and Paul, who seems to have had a 
keen sense and appreciation of personal benefits 
received, mentions it in a letter which the Holy 
Ghost designed should be read while the world 
stands. 

Now there are two things which cannot be be- 
lieved : first, that Peter was in Rome while Paul was 
a prisoner, and never came to see him, or sent him 
any comforting message, or ministered to his wants 
in any way ; and second, that if he had done so, 
Paul would not have told of it while mentioning in 
his letters the bright spots in his gloomy prison life. 
In the same letter he mentions Luke as being with 
him, and refers to several others who had gone to 
other places ; but Peter the primate (?) is not re- 
ferred to. He sends messages from the brethren 
in Rome to Timothy, naming four persons, evi- 
dently all Gentile Christians, and adds, ' ' and all 
the brethren," and again we are compelled to 
notice that there is no message from Peter, any 
more than if no such person existed. 

Thus closes this, supposed to be the last letter of 
Paul, and we must consider it another confirmatory 
proof that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote 
this letter, and had not been there during Paul's 
imprisonment. 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 9 1 

The letter to Philemon will next be considered. 
This is a private letter in relation to a slave who 
had run away from Philemon, but who, since 
coming in contact with Paul, had been converted 
to Christ. This letter is supposed to have been 
written about the same time as the letter to the 
Colossians. The only point in it relating to the 
subject of this discussion is the final salutation. 
Five brethren, one of whom was a ' ' fellow pris- 
oner," and the others "fellow laborers," join in 
salutations to Philemon, but there is no salutation 
from Peter. The letter to Philemon is therefore 
submitted as evidence that Peter was not in Rome 
when Paul wrote it. It must be borne in mind 
that letter-writing was not so common then as 
now. All letters were sent by private carriers, 
and nothing that was of interest would be likely 
to be omitted. 

We have now carefully examined seven of the 
letters of Paul, which would be likely to have a 
bearing upon affairs in Rome : one written to the 
church in that city, and six written from Rome to 
various churches and individuals. From the letter 
to the brethren in Rome, taken in connection with 
the statement in the Acts of the Apostles and the 
letter to the Galatians, we have learned the fol- 
lowing facts : That the church in Rome was largely 
composed of Gentile believers (Rom. i : 13) ; that 
Christ had not been authoritatively preached at 
Rome when Paul wrote the letter (verse 15) ; that 



92 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

by the mutual agreement and decision of the 
council at Jerusalem, to which consented James, 
Peter, and John, Peter was expressly excluded 
from making Rome or any other Gentile country 
his field of labor (Gal. 2:9); that Rome, being 
the chief city of the Gentile world, was especially 
Paul's field of labor, inasmuch as he was the 
apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22 : 21 ; 26 : 
17, 18) ; and finally, the greetings sent to the 
members of the church at Rome, in which twenty- 
four persons are named, contain no mention of 
Peter, nor any allusion to him as having had any- 
thing whatever to do with establishing the gospel 
in that city or doing anything there in any way 
whatever. 

From the six letters written from Rome we have 
been able to learn that Paul was the recognized 
leader of the church while in that city ; that he 
was supported while there by the voluntary offer- 
ings of a distant church, or by the self-sacrificing 
efforts of his fellow laborers ; that the brethren of 
other churches knew of Paul's welfare only by 
means of special messengers sent by Paul himself ; 
that but few of his fellow workers of the circum- 
cision were a comfort to him ; that mention is 
made of the position and movements of various 
laborers in or near Rome (2 Tim. 4: 10-12 ; Titus 
3:12, 13), but Peter is not referred to ; and lastly, 
that notwithstanding many residents of Rome are 
named, Peter's name is not once mentioned as 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 93 

being in Rome, nor is anything said about his 
being head of the church, or having any care for, 
or interest in, Paul, or as being any comfort or 
aid to him in any way, or as taking any direction 
of the work there, or as sending any greetings 
either to the churches or to individuals to whom 
Paul wrote. How all these omissions in reference 
to Peter's residence in Rome or to his functions 
of office, can be explained, allowing the supposition 
that he lived there, is more than we can understand. 
But allowing that he was not there at the time 
any of these letters were written, that he was not 
bishop of Rome nor primate of the church, then 
these omissions to mention Peter are easily under- 
stood. He had never been there, and the Gentile 
converts knew very little about him. 

Thus these letters, which, if Peter were bishop of 
Rome, should abound in evidence of it, are perfectly 
barren of such evidence ; but they do yield an 
abundance of proof to the contrary. From all 
these accumulated evidences, the conclusion is in- 
evitable that up to the date of Paul's latest letter 
from Rome, Peter had never been there ; and that 
therefore, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, 
the doctrine of Peter's being established as bishop of 
Rome and primate of the church has no foundation 
whatever. 

In the discussion of the question whether Peter 
was ever at Rome or not, we have thus far pre- 
sented only Scriptural evidences. These are more 



94 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

important than all else, and really settle the ques- 
tion. Those who may desire to know what the 
scholarship of the world believes upon the subject, 
may be assured that no one has anything better 
than the Scriptures upon which to build a theory 
or found a belief, and that they are as open to one as 
to another. What men of past ages have found in 
the Scriptures, we can find ; and it will be infinitely 
better for us to find the truth in this matter, as 
well as every other, in the Scriptures, for ourselves, 
than to try to find it in the opinions of even the 
best of men. This is why the author has tried 
to reason out of .the Scriptures in regard to this 
question. 

But as to scholarship, we will simply say that a 
great number of eminent scholars have maintained 
the position that Peter was never in Rome. We 
might refer to very many distinguished Protestant 
authors, whose names are household words, who 
have held this view, but we will only quote from a 
few noted Catholic writers, who have been com- 
pelled to admit the same. 

De Cormenin, a Roman Catholic historian, says : 
*' We are compelled to admit the force of reasoning 
of the Protestants, who steadily deny the existence 
of the journey of St. Peter to Rome. There is no 
proof that his blood was shed at Rome, despite the 
opinion of Baronius, Fleury, and others."^ Simon, 
in ** Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," makes the 
following statement : * ' Charles de Maulin, the 
1" History of the Popes," pp. 17, 18. 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME ? 95 

great ecclesiastical lawyer (a. d. 1566), whom 
Father Calmet speaks of as a steadfast Roman 
Catholic, and than whom no writer ever enjoyed a 
higher reputation for learning and intelligence, has 
unequivocally stated it as his opinion, that there 
never was even a vague tradition among the an- 
cients about Peter's having left the East, and that 
one might very well be a Roman Catholic without 
thinking there was." He also makes the following 
statement : * ' Even when after the breaking up of 
the empire, the bishops of Rome began to extend 
their authority over other churches, they never 
alleged to put forward this story of Peter's being at 
Rome, and of his primacy devolving in succession 
upon them, which they would not have omitted to 
do if there had been any such thing to put forward ; 
a clear proof that there was not ; the story, I sup- 
pose, not having yet been invented." ^ 

Ellendorf, a distinguished Catholic historian and 
professor in Berlin, says : * ' We cannot find fault 
with a Protestant, when, relying on the proofs 
which the Holy Scriptures and the oldest Fathers, 
Clemens of Rome and Justin, present, he holds the 
abode of Peter at Rome, and all connected with it, 
for a tale drawn- from the Apocrypha. This much 
is certain, that no one of the arguments which can 
be opposed to him [the Protestant] has so much 
weight that he is morally bound to acknowledge 
the story as truth. Peter's abode at Rome can 
never be proved ; neither, therefore, can the pri- 

1 "Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," Vol. iv, p. 460. 



96 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

macy of the Romish Church, based on it, be so. " ^ 
Again, same writer: " In A. D. 45, Peter had not 
yet come to Antioch, to say nothing of his coming 
to Rom_e , he had not even crossed the boundaries 
of Palestine. The opinion, then, that Peter went 
to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 42, 
is proved to be wholly false. " Again : "We see 
what is the weight of these testimonies, — just 
nothing at all ; they are from the fifth, sixth, and 
seventh centuries. Peter's bishopric at Antioch is 
shown to be, in all respects, a fable. Again : "We 
must have lost all common sense and regard for 
truth if we maintain, under these circumstances, 
that Peter and his disciples were with Paul at 
Rome in A. d. 61-63, when he wrote these epistles. 
While Paul developed such a widespread and deep, 
penetrating activity at Rome ; while he there con- 
centrated the action of almost the whole body of 
the important intellects of the church, or pointed 
out to them abroad, the circle of operations ; and 
while he formed, organized, founded, and governed 
the church at Rome, and from it, lending form and 
aid, he made his attacks on the East and West, 
nothing is perceived of Peter, not a word is 
breathed of his abode, or of his activity there." 
Lastly, he says : " Finally, we have proved from 
the above-mentioned authorities that not the slight- 
est share can be shown for Peter in the founding of 
the church at Rome, and much more, that this was 
exclusively owing to Paul and his disciples. The 

1 Bibliotliica Sacra^ of July, 1858, and January, 1859. 



WAS PETER EVER AT ROME? 9/ 

mode and manner of conducting this proof has 
been twofold, positive and negative. In the former 
we proved that Peter was elsewhere at the time in 
which he is placed in Rome ; in the latter, that the 
silence of the authorities renders the residence of 
Peter at Rome wholly inadmissible." Many other 
Catholic authors have made similar admissions, 
among whom are Klee, Maier, Hug, Filmoser, and 
Stengel. These men were Catholics, and would 
gladly have believed all that their church claims, 
could they have done so without denying what 
their consciences and critical judgment held to be 
the truth. Such admissions are, therefore, very 
important. 



CHAPTER VIIL 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. 

IF there were in the Scriptures clear evidences that 
Peter was estabhshed as bishop of Rome, or 
even that he ever resided in that citv, there would 
be no necessity for those who desire to prove these 
things to make an appeal to any other writings or 
to tradition, to support their theories. Unhappily 
for those who hold that Peter was the bishop of 
Rome, a survey of the Scriptural field affords no 
certain evidence, but much which is against them ; 
and hence, as in other things, Rome attempts to 
prove her theories by tradition and the writings of 
other than the Biblical writers. In the discussion of 
this question it must be evident to every candid 
person that when we leave the solid, authentic 
record in the .Scriptures to listen to the voice of 
tradition, we have stepped from a firm foundation 
upon a very obscure and slippery path. This would 
be true even if the writings ascribed to post-Biblical 
writers were actually written by those by whom 
they purport to be written. Truth, however, com- 
pels the statement that little reliance can be placed 
upon the authenticity of many of these productions. 
[98] 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. 99 

But even if we could know that the letters purport- 
ing to have been written by Christians in the sec- 
ond, third, and fourth centuries are authentic, they 
would contain no authority in matters of doctrine ; 
and since we do not know who were the real 
authors of many of these letters, the folly of build- 
ing upon or sustaining a doctrine by them, is very 
apparent. To try to establish a doctrine by such 
doubtful testimony, especially when it is actually 
contrary to what is revealed in the inspired Word, 
is little else than impious. 

Of the value of tradition, an able writer has well 
said: "To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to 
treat tradition as we do a notorious liar, to whom 
we give no credit unless what he says is confirmed 
to us by some person of undoubted veracity. . . . 
False and lying traditions are of an early date, and 
the greatest men have, out of a pious credulity, suf- 
fered themselves to be imposed upon by them."^ 

Tradition is simply stories, true or false, which 
have been transmitted from one generation to 
another. It is well known that a story or a state- 
ment which has passed through the minds and 
mouths of half a dozen persons, even when all are 
contemporaries, and when but a few days or hours 
are occupied in its transmission, is almost always 
greatly changed. What, then, can we say for the 
probability of the exact truthfulness of a story or 

iBowers's "History of the Popes," Vol. i, p. i, Philadelphia 
edition, 1847. 



lOO THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

statement which has come to us strained through 
many centuries, and which has been passed on by 
an ignorant and credulous people ? No depend- 
ence at all can be placed upon such evidence. It 
may have in it a modicum of truth, but the myth- 
ical has so predominated that it can be regarded 
only as an idle tale. There is much of this legen- 
dary lore which has sprung from the experiences 
and condition of the early church ; but it is of little 
practical utility, and of no use whatever in the 
establishment or maintenance of any Christian 
doctrine. 

It is now generally believed by Catholics that 
Peter was established as bishop of Rome ; and, of 
course, the tradition grows in strength the longer 
it is believed ; for a tradition, having nothing to 
support it, gains its seeming strength during the 
time that has elapsed since it started, because the 
older it grows, the more difficult it becomes to dis- 
cover its lack of foundation. Sometimes a moun- 
tain stream, carrying much water in its lower 
course, has no perceptible source, gradually drying 
up as we ascend, because it is largely made up of 
small streamlets from many lateral sources. So 
the tradition of Peter's residence and bishopric at 
Rome, grows fainter and fainter as we trace it back 
to discover its origin. 

Those who uphold the tradition of Peter's location 
at Rome, and his supremacy over the church, point 
to certain reputed writings of the so-called ' ' Fa- 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. lOI 

thers of the church." This term is appHed to dis- 
tinguished Christians of the first three centuries — 
the immediate successors of the apostles. These, 
it is claimed, furnish evidence of Peter's presence 
and establishment at Rome. Of the writings which 
are presented as proof of this theory, many were 
not given to the world until hundreds of years after 
their reputed authors were dead. A number of 
them having been carefully examined by succeeding 
generations, have been pronounced to be forgeries. 
This decision is not made by Protestants alone, but 
by learned Catholics as well. What is known as the 
Clementina,^ and the forged decretals of Isidore, 
referred to elsewhere in this book, are remarkable 
illustrations of priestly fraud and subsequent detec- 
tion and conviction. Passing by the statements 
claimed to be productions of Linus Anacletus which 
first came to light in the forged Clementina, and 
which so reputable an authority as Cardinal Bellar- 
mine acknowledges to be forgeries, we come to the 
statement of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, which is 
quite generally referred to by Catholic writers as 
proving that Peter was in Rome. It occurs in a 
letter of Ignatius to the church in Rome. 

Several renderings of the text are made, but 
the one by Archbishop Wake, giving both text 

1 "Writings, partly orthodox, partly heretical, falsely ascribed to 
Clement, one of the apostolic Fathers, and bishop of Rome from 
A. D. 92 to 102, for the purpose of giving them greater weight and 
currency." — Mc Clintock and Strongs Vol. ii, p. ^82. 



102 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and context, seems to be the most fair. It reads 
thus: "I write unto the church, and signify to 
them all, that I am willing to die for God, unless 
you hinder me. ... I do not as Peter and Paul, 
command you ; for they were apostles, I a con- 
demned man. They were free, but I am even unto 
this day a servant." Of this statement of Ignatius, 
Pierson, a Catholic writer, says: ''What can be 
more manifest than this from these words of the 
apostle, that Ignatius must have had an idea that 
Peter proclaimed the gospel at Rome, was put to 
death there, as well as Paul." Another Catholic 
writer, Barbatier, exclaims, "Why does this writer 
mention Peter and Paul together in this way, if it 
were not that they were both at Rome .^ ... It 
is evident that Ignatius believed that Peter had 
been at Rome." Father Mc Corry also states, 
''This proves that the Romans had been taught by 
St. Peter and St. Paul, and had received their com- 
mands, which, of course, shows that both apostles 
had been at Rome." 

Let us look carefully at this statement of Igna- 
tius to see if these deductions as to its meaning are 
necessary. Does he say that Peter had been in 
Rome.'' — He does not. He simply says that he, 
Ignatius, wrote unto the church ; but could not, 
like Peter and Paul, command them. This by no 
means proves that Peter had been in Rome. One 
of Peter's letters is directed "to them that have 
obtained like precious faith." Paul said of the 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. ' IO3 

Roman Church that their ** faith is spoken of 
throughout the whole world. " Hence, this letter 
of Peter's directed to those of "like precious faith," 
was as certainly addressed to the brethren who 
composed the church in Rome, as to others. It 
should also be remarked that Ignatius is speaking 
in reference to ivritings to the church when he 
makes this statement. Surely nothing but a very 
weak cause would endeavor to sustain itself by 
such doubtful arguments. It is also evident that 
these words of Ignatius give no pre-eminence to 
Peter above Paul. Both were apostles ; and as 
apostles, they had an authority which Ignatius 
had not. 

Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, about A. d. 170, is 
another one on whose testimony Peter's presence in 
Rome is thought to be proved. The works of this 
bishop, if he ever wrote anything, are lost ; and all 
we know about them, we learn from Eusebius, who 
claims to give some fragments, secured we know 
not how. The statement given by Eusebius pur- 
ports to be a portion of a letter written by Dionysius 
to Soter, bishop of Rome, and reads as follows : 
"So also now, you by this your admonition, have 
again blended into one that plantation of the 
Romans and Corinthians, which was first sown by 
Peter and Paul ; for both having planted us here 
in Corinth, taught us in like manner, and then in 
like manner and place having taught in Italy, they 
bore their testimony about the same time." 



I04 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Remember that this bishop hved in the latter 
part of the second century, and that his writings 
are first quoted by Eusebius about the middle of 
the fourth century. Remember further, that at 
the best, only fragments of his writings are pre- 
served. Of his writings Eusebius himself testifies : 
''Hence Dionysius, the bishop of Corinth, com- 
plained that in his own time, his epistles were so 
corrupted by additions and subtractions as that it 
seems he would have them no more esteemed as 
his."-^ Eusebius further claims to give the words 
of Dionysius in regard to the changes made in his 
writings, thus: "As the brethren desired me to 
write epistles, I wrote them, and these the apostles 
of the devil have filled with tares, exchaHging some 
things and adding others, for whom there is a woe 
reserved. It is not, therefore, a matter of wonder 
if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred 
writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the 
same thing in other works that are not to be com- 
pared with them."^ A doubtful extract from the 
writings of one who in his life complained that his 
writings had been tampered with, brought out two 
hundred years later, cannot be regarded as satis- 
factory evidence. Testimony of such a character 
would not be admitted as evidence in any court 
of law. 

The words of Clement of Alexandria, reputed 
to have been bishop, or chief, of the presbyters at 

^Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History," Vol, iv, chap. 23. 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. IO5 

Rome, and the one to whom Paul refers in Phil. 
4 : 3, are quoted to prove that Peter lived and died 
at Rome. The writings of Clement appear to be 
well authenticated. In his first epistle to the Cor- 
inthians occur these words : — 

" Let us set before our eyes the excellent apos- 
tles : Peter, who through righteous zeal under- 
went not one or two, but many lab'ors, till at last, 
being martyred, he went to the place of glory that 
was due to him. Through zeal, Paul obtained the 
reward of patience. Seven times was he in bonds; 
he was whipped, he was stoned. He preached 
both in the East and in the West, and having 
taught the world righteousness, and coming to the 
borders of the West, and suffering mart3^rdom un- 
der the governors, so he departed out of the world, 
and went to the most holy place, being a most em- 
inent pattern of patience." (Lardner's translation.) 

Father Mc Corry, in his treatise, page 6j , 
gives a different rendering, thus : ''Let us always 
have before our eyes those good apostles : Peter, 
who endured so many labors, and who, dying a 
martyr, departed to glory ; and Paul, who obtained 
the reward by patience, and suffered martyrdom 
under the emperors. To those men who had led 
so angelic a life, a vast multitude of the elect were 
added, who, rivaling one another in suffering re- 
proaches and torments, have left behind them for 
our sake the most beautiful example. " He then 
adds : ** Now here is a declaration from a contem- 
8 



I06 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

porary writer bearing evidence to the fact that the 
Prince of apostles died a martyr at Rome." 

Bishop Kendrick, referring to this statement of 
Clement, says: "Clement . . . declares that 
Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome before 
his eyes." ^ 

This statement of Kendrick shows how small a 
base may be m.ade to sustain a large monument. 
Allowing Mc Corry's translation to be correct, it 
does not prove that Peter perished at Rome. There 
is a vast difference between the exhortation of Clem- 
ent : ' ' Let us always have before our eyes those 
good apostles : Peter, who endured so many labors, 
and who, dying a martyr, departed to glory," and 
the deduction of Kendrick, that Clement says that 
"Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom before his 
eyes." We may say, "Let us always have before 
our eyes the sufferings of Christ ; " but this would 
not be understood that we saw Christ suffer, or 
that he died in our presence. Of the translation 
of Mc Corry, Simon (Richard) a thorough theolo- 
gian of profound learning, says: "The transla- 
tions of this writer are invaluable as showing to 
what lengths a few of the Roman clergy, now among 
us, go, and are obliged to go upon this subject and 
these passages."^ The same independent writer 
further says : ' ' The first question that suggests itself 
is. Why is Paul's journey into Europe and Paul's 

1 " Primacy," p. 94, edition 1848. 

^ " Mission and Martyrdom of Peter," p. 309, 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. 10/ 

martyrdom at Rome so pointedly stated in the very 
same paragraph, in which nothing more is said of 
Peter's travels or Peter's martyrdom than would 
manifestly presuppose the Scripture account of his 
going to the Jews, and the dispersion, as he was 
directed by his divine Master, and of his being put 
to death at Babylon, as his own epistle intimates ? 
How is it that Clement makes no allusion to his 
residence in Europe, or even of the martyrdom 
there of the apostle of the circumcision as well as 
of the apostle of the Gentiles ? Peter's martyrdom 
took place in Clement's lifetime ; how is it, then, 
that Clement never heard of anything connected 
with it at variance with the facts that are laid be- 
fore us in the Scriptures ? But we do not inquire 
for the evidence of Peter's having lived and died, 
as is indicated in the sacred text. Our inquiry is 
for the alleged evidence of his not having done so. 
Father Mc Corry supposes St. Clement to speak of 
the martyrs that had fallen in his own city ; whereas 
Clement speaks of those who had fallen within the 
memory of that present generation. ' Let us look 
at the illustrious examples of our own age,' says 
the bishop of Rome : ' let us take, for instance, the 
apostles.' " ^ 

Faussett, in his commentary on i Peter, speak- 
ing of the claim made that Peter was put to death 
at Rome, denies that Clement's words can be so 
construed. He says: *' Clement of Rome . . , 

1 Ibid., p. 34. 



I08 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions 
Paul and Peter together, but makes it a distinguish- 
ing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both 
in the East and the West, implying that Peter was 
never in the West. * I must shortly put off this 
my tabernacle' (2 Peter i : 14), implies that his 
martyrdom was near ; yet he makes no allusion to 
Rome, or to any intention of visiting it." 

Taking into consideration all the facts in the 
case, one must conclude that Clement's letter, for 
which so much is claimed, to prove Peter's martyr- 
dom at Rome, is entirely destitute of proof in that 
respect. 

Another writer, who is often quoted as offering 
evidence of Peter's presence in Rome, is Caius, a 
Roman priest at the time of Pope Zephyrinus, 
A. D. 202-218. His words are quoted by Father 
Mc Corry as follows : "I can point out to you 
the trophies of the apostles Peter and Paul. For 
whether you direct your footsteps to the Vatican, 
or to the Ostian Way, the trophies of those who 
founded the Roman Church present themselves to 
your view." 

To those unacquainted with the devious ways 
pursued by zealous devotees in attempting to prove 
their points, it may be thought remarkable when 
we say that according to the best scholars the 
names of neither Peter nor Paul appear in Caius's 
original words ! As given by Ellendorf, a Catholic 
of excellent reputation, both for learning and for 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. IO9 

impartiality, they are translated thus: "I can 
show you the monuments (tropJicea) of the apos- 
tles ; for when you go to the Vatican, or to the 
road to Ostia, you will find the same monuments 
of those who founded this church." 

Upon this point Ellendorf further remarks : "If 
we suppose this to be authentic, it proves nothing 
at all. The monuments, " or trophies, may signify 
graves ; but who says that those monuments of the 
apostles were the graves of Peter and Paul } Those 
men are called apostles in the Holy Scriptures, and 
by the Fathers not only who were the apostles 
specially, but likewise their pupils and followers. 
Thus Luke (Acts 14:14) names Barnabas an apos- 
tle ; so Paul also calls Titus, Timothy, Silas, etc. , 
his fellow apostles ; so Clemens of Rome is called 
by Clement of Alexandria, who was a contemporary 
of Caius, an apostle. Among the apostles, also, to 
whose graves Caius points, we may properly under- 
stand those of Paul, and many of his companions 
who, with him, founded the church at Rome, and 
who died there with him, or after him, in the faith. 
The addition, that they were the graves of those 
who founded the church at Rome, necessarily 
points to the interpretation ; while it is a matter 
of fact, according to the Holy Scriptures, that the 
Church of Rome was founded by Paul and his dis- 
ciples, but in no wise by Peter and his follow^ers. " ^ 

Upon this point it may further be said that it 
was the custom to erect monuments in honor of 

1 Bibliothica Sacra ^ Jan. i, 1859. 



no THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

the apostles and principal martyrs of the church, 
in all the cities of Christendom. This is also prac- 
tised at the present time. A monument of a so- 
called South American saint who lived several 
hundred years ago, has lately been erected in New 
York City, but this would hardly be proof that this 
saint lived and died in New York ; though should 
there be a future credulous and ignorant age, those 
who live in that age might be made to believe it. 
If the erection of a monument in a certain place 
proves that the person honored by it died there, 
then it may be proved that Lincoln died in Phila- 
delphia, and Washington in New York City. 

During the third century and onward, the struggle 
of the great metropolitan bishops for the headship 
of the church was in progress, and the adherents of 
each church desired to make it appear that their 
church was the greatest. Claims of superiority in 
origin were often put forth. That a church was 
founded by an apostle was considered to be a mark 
of the superiority of that church. Rome had the 
honor of being established by Paul ; but if the 
labors of one apostle in founding a church made 
that church great, the labors of two apostles would 
make the honor greater. It was for this reason 
that strong claims were made by the adherents of 
the bishop of Rome that Peter assisted in founding 
the church there. Indeed, so sharp was the contest 
for this honor, that later, John was added to Peter 
and Paul as one who had helped to establish the 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. I I I 

church in Rome ! In the struggle for supremacy, 
nothing was left out which it was thought would 
give Rome the advantage over Constantinople, 
Antioch, and the other chief cities of the Roman 
Empire. 

An unknown author, named Hippolytus, is also 
quoted to prove that Peter died in Rome. Who 
this Hippolytus was, or whether he is entitled to 
any credence or not, no one knows. He is said to 
have been a bishop, but there is no agreement of 
critics as to what place was the seat of his bishopric. 
Farrar, in his "Lives of the Fathers," has this to 
say of him: "Hippolytus occupied a position of 
extreme antagonism to two popes, whom he accused 
as fancying themselves bishops. One of these, 
Zephyrinus (a. d. 202-217), he describes as a weak 
and venal dunce ; and Calixtus (A. D. 217-222) he 
speaks of as a cheat and sacrilegious swindler, an 
infamous convict, an heresiarch. We remain igno- 
rant whether he was orthodox or heretical, a 
Catholic or schismatic, a priest or a bishop, a pope 
or an anti-pope, an excommunicated sectarian or 
a martyred saint. Dr. Lightfoot has suggested that 
Caius and Hippolytus were one and the same per- 
son, Caius Hippolytus." 

Strange as it may seem, this unknown man first 
gave to the world many of the doubtful traditions 
which have been devoutly believed through many 
ages. He first stated that Peter was crucified 
with his head downward, and many other equally 



112 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER, 

fabulous stories. Here are his words : ' ' Peter 
preached the gospel in Pontus and Galatia and 
Cappadocia and Bithynia and Italy and Asia, and 
was afterward crucified by Nero in Rome, with his 
head downward."^ 

As a criticism of this statement, we can do no 
better than append the following from the pen of 
Rev. John Hall, D. D : — 

* * Not content with giving us the history of the 
apostles, we are favored by this marvelously in- 
formed writer with the fields of labor of all the 
seventy, whom he also enumerates. He includes 
among these all the names in PauPs epistles, with 
many others. 

" As a specimen of his remarkable knowledge, we 
give this statement : ' Mark the evangelist, bishop 
of Alexandria, and Luke the evangelist, belonged 
to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the 
offense of the word which Christ spake, ' ' Except a 
man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he is not 
worthy of me ! " Bat the one being induced to re- 
turn to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and 
the other by Paul's, they were honored to preach 
that gospel on account of which they also suffered 
martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other 
being crucified on an olive tree. ' 

* ' He also makes bishops of over fifty of the sev- 
enty, giving us their names, and also those of their 
respective churches. 

1 " Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus," Vol. ii, pp. 
130-134- 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II 3 

" Here is a man of whose residence we are igno- 
rant. In writings attributed to him, we have a 
great variety of statements for which there is no 
contemporaneous evidence, and which carry on 
their face, absurdity and impossibihty. It is mani- 
fest that he draws on his imagination for his facts. 
He adds nothing to our knowledge of Peter's his- 
tory. No one is, therefore, warranted in making an 
appeal to Hippolytus, in his investigations."^ 

Tertullian, who is one of the Fathers quoted to 
prove that Peter was at Rome, lived about the 
middle of the third century. He was a devoted 
adherent of the bishop of Rome, and anxious to 
enhance his glory and power. He is reported to 
have written thus : "If thou art near to Italy, 
thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority 
close at hand. What a happy church is that in 
which the apostles poured out their doctrines with 
their blood ; where Peter had a like passion with 
the Lord ; where Paul had for his crown the same 
death with John ; where the apostle John was 
plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and 
was afterward banished to an island. " 

The manifest intention of Tertullian in this writ- 
ing, to glorify Rome is so apparent, that the relia- 
bility of his statement is greatly impaired. The 
question of the respective authority of the bishops 
of the large cities of the Roman Empire was then a 
live question. Tertullian was an advocate of the 

1 " Was Peter at Rome ? " p. 192. 



114 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

authority of Rome. According to Tertullian there 
was " authority in Rome." Not satisfied with hav- 
ing two apostles there, he now brings in a third, 
John, to add dignity to the Roman Church ! 

In regard to the character of Tertulhan, a state- 
ment may be in place. He is thus described by 
Neander : ''His fiery and positive disposition, 
and his previous training as an advocate in rhet- 
oric, early impelled him, especially in controversy, 
to rhetorical exaggerations. When he defends a 
cause, of which truth he is convinced, we often see 
him the advocate, whose sole anxiety is to collect 
together all the arguments which can help his case, 
it matters not whether they are true arguments or 
only miserable sophisms." ^ 

Of Tertullian's tendency to believe idle and ex- 
travagant tales, the same writer further says : 
' ' Tertullian, who had more familiar knowledge of 
Roman antiquities, might be expected, it is true, 
to know better ; but even he was too prejudiced 
in such cases, too ignorant of criticism, to institute 
any further examination with regard to the correct- 
ness of a statement which was in accordance with 
his taste, and which besides came to him on such 
respectable authority. The more critical Alexan- 
drians take no notice of the matter. " ^ 

Chambers, in his Encyclopedia, speaks of Tertul- 
lian as "a man of strong and violent passions, 

^Neander's "History of the Christian Religion," Vol. i, p. 6S3. 
2 Ibid.^ p. 454. 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II5 

who loved and hated with intensity. He was nar- 
row, bigoted, and uncharitable." 

Farrar says of him : ' ' He often seems to care 
more for the immediate victory than for the dis- 
covery of truth. He is often at variance with him- 
self, because he improvises his own convictions , 
and is more intent on prostrating his opponent than 
on examining the ground of the opinion. He often 
condescends to the grossest sophisms, the most 
irritating word-splitting, the most violent abuse. " 

Such was the character of Tertullian, often re- 
ferred to as the "fiery African," and after the 
unknown and unverified Caius, he is the main de- 
pendence for the story that Peter suffered in Rome. 

It is not necessary to take the space to examine 
further writings of this character. The story once 
started, Rome gained honor by it, and hence it 
was the desire of all the adherents of Rome to 
strengthen the idea in every way possible. As 
time progressed, it was more boldly asserted. In 
the Middle Ages these Fathers were exalted almost 
to the place of the apostles, and whatever they had 
said was regarded as authority. 

These exaggerated claims for Rome were dis- 
puted by the Eastern Church, and later, the intelli- 
gence of the West, reasserting itself, examined into 
the assertions of the Fathers, and proved their 
absurdity. 

As an illustration of the depths of folly to which 
people will go, we refer to Peter's chain, tomb, and 



Il6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

chair in Rome, which are adduced as evidence that 
Peter was located there. These things may be ac- 
counted for in the same way that rehcs of earher 
saints are pointed out in Eastern lands. Thus the 
grave of Noah, near Baalbec, seventy feet long, is 
confidently pointed out to the traveler by the Arab, 
and he is astonished beyond measure should you 
deny that Noah was buried there, or that this grave 
is not a true indication of Noah's height ! The 
chair of St. Peter, suspended in St. Peter's at 
Rome, is appealed to^ as positive proof that Peter 
resided in Rome ! For ages the credulous people 
of Rome have regarded it with superstitious venera- 
tion. When Rome was taken possession of by the 
French army at the time of the French Revolu- 
tion, the chair was taken down and carefully ex- 
amined. 

Two savants, both Romanists, were appointed 
to examine it. One of them, Lanci, made the fol- 
lowing report : "I have examined the chair of St. 
Peter at Rome. It is not of the age of Augustus, 
but belongs to the fifth century of the Christian 
era ; its architecture was not yet discovered in the 
Augustan age. To my great astonishment I have 
found in this chair twelve little plates of ivory, on 
which were sculptured the twelve labors of Her- 
cules ; so that, in my opinion, it was a chair of one 
of the emperors, or of some consular man, in the 
decay of the Roman Empire." Thus an ancient, 
heathen, Roman chair, illustrating pagan fables, is 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II / 

made to serve a similar purpose for Christianity in 
later ages ! 

The chain of St. Peter was said to have been 
brought from Jerusalem to Rome by Eudocia, wife 
of Theodosius the Younger. This chain, obtained 
no one knows how, was believed to be the chain 
worn by Peter when he was imprisoned by Herod. 
The Roman pontiff, not to be undone, produced 
another chain, which he asserted was worn by 
Peter in Rome. By a miracle the two chains be- 
came welded together, making one chain, and a 
church was subsequently erected in honor of the 
event. Should any one doubt the miracle, the 
church is pointed to as evidence of the fact ! 

The question as to whether Peter was ever in 
Rome was publicly discussed in that city in 1872. 
Three Catholic priests affirmed, and three Protes- 
tant clergymen denied. Among those who denied 
was Gavazzi, who had formerly been a priest and a 
chaplain in the army of Garibaldi. The following 
extract is presented from Gavazzi' s argument on 
that occasion : — 

"The silence of the Bible upon the coming of 
Peter to Rome is not by any means a negative 
proof, but a positive and most explicit one. Car- 
dinal Bellarmine says that silence is a positive 
proof. . . , Let us look at some parallel. Thiers, 
for instance, does not say a word in his ' History of 
the Consulate and Empire,* of Napoleon having 
gone to \yashington in America. This is, perhaps, 



Il8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

proof that he went there ? — No, quite the contrary. 
By the same logic it might be said that Peter never 
went to Rome. 

*' The Acts of the Apostles, which say not a word 
of the coming of St. Peter to Rome, is the true, 
official, authentic history, giving a particular ac- 
count of the development, of the progress, of the 
persecutions, and of the triumphs of the church. 
Their aim is to show the labors of the apostles. 
These Acts are a legitimate, impartial account, 
because St. Luke was inspired. How could he 
be silent about St. Peter's going to Rome, when 
he speaks of his visits to so many other cities of 
minor importance ? 

' ' He says he went to Lydda, to Joppa, to Sa- 
maria, to Caesarea, to Jerusalem ; why should he 
not also have said he went to Rome, if he really 
went there ? The Acts of the Apostles is, in 
short, for the apostles, what Thiers's account of 
the Consulate and Empire is for Napoleon. Would 
it have been possible for Thiers to be silent about 
Napoleon's going to Moscow.'^ — No. Well, then, 
St. Peter's going to Rome would have been a thou- 
sand times m.ore important for the apostolate and 
the church, than Napoleon's going to Moscow for 
the empire. 

" Our adversaries say that perhaps the going 
of St. Peter to Rome is not mentioned for fear of 
compromising him. Fear .'^ — No, it was not the 
case ; because when the Acts of the Apostles was 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION. II 9 

written, the danger was past. I respect Peter too 
much to beHeve that he was afraid. Peter was not 
a coward to fear martyrdom. Nor did Paul reckon 
him as such. The silence of Paul, then, is a posi- 
tive proof that, during the time he was in Rome, 
St. Peter was not there." 

In dismissing this branch of the subject, a few 
general remarks upon the Fathers may not be out 
of place. One who has never read the " Fathers," 
knowing that they lived in the times immediately 
succeeding the apostles, and that they have been 
regarded with veneration for long ages, may have 
the impression that their writings must be very 
valuable, almost equal to those of the apostles 
themselves. Alas ! the illusion is quickly dispelled 
by reading them. Many of them are not worth 
translating. Portions of them are too indecent to 
be translated, and all of them abound in idle tales 
and fanciful vagaries. 

The editor of the National Baptist, in an issue 
of that paper, dated March i, 1878, in response to 
a query from one who wanted to know how "to 
argue without any arguments, " replied in the fol- 
lowing humorous vein : "I regard a judicious use 
of the ' Fathers ' as being, on the whole, the best 
reliance for any one who is in the situation of my 
querist. The advantages of the ' Fathers ' are two- 
fold : first, they carry a good deal of weight with 
the masses ; and second, you can find whatever 
you want in the * Fathers,' I don't believe that any 



I20 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

opinion could be advanced so foolish,. so manifestly 
absurd, but that you can find passages to sustain it 
on the pages of these venerable stagers. And to 
the common mind, one of these is just as good as 
another. . . . Yes, my brother, the * Fathers ' are 
your stronghold ; they are Heaven's best gift to the 
man who has a cause that can't be sustained in any 
other way." 

The above statement well illustrates the value 
of the testimony of the Fathers. Comparing them 
with the forefathers, or apostles, we find that 
though the distance in time between the wri- 
tings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, James, and 
Peter, and those of Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, 
and Origen, is not so great, the separation in 
quality of matter is immeasurable. Here truly 
"distance lends enchantment to the view." For 
real value, later writers have far excelled them. 
They contradict the Scriptures, each other, and 
themselves. Each had his own ideas to advance, 
his own purposes to serve. Many of them had 
been heathen philosophers, and endeavored to 
harmonize the teachings of Christ and his apos- 
tles with the wild vagaries of heathenism. By 
so doing they helped to form the bridge by which 
the church passed over from Christ, the apos- 
tles, and the Scriptures, to dogma, endless and 
useless ceremonies, and soul-darkening supersti- 
tions. Rome's appeal to tradition to supplement 
her lack of scripture to prove her dogmas in regard 



AN APPEAL TO TRADITION, 121 

to Peter, is therefore a manifest failure. The very 
fact that such an appeal is made, is a self-con- 
fessed admission of weakness. 

With the Romanist the presence and bishopric 
of Peter in Rome is a fundamental portion of his 
creed. For one to deny it is to him a denial of 
salvation. 

Thus salvation is made dependent on something 
not taught in the Scriptures, and which, evidences 
drawn from the Scriptures are distinctly against. 
They are driven to tradition, which has been so 
manipulated as to sustain many things having no 
other support ; but even these traditions, closely 
examined, are proved to be, as in numerous other 
instances, but a mixture of pompous assumption, 
deceit, and blind credulity. 



CHAPTER IX. 



COMPARISON OF EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY 
USED BY PETER AND PAUL. 

IN investigating the question whether Peter pos- 
sessed an authority not possessed by Paul and 
the other apostles, it may be well to examine the 
writings of these two eminent apostles, comparing 
them, to ascertain which one puts forth the stronger 
claim to exercise authority. If it shall be found 
that in expressions of authority, and even in claims 
of the same, Paul greatly exceeds Peter, it will be 
rational to presume at least that he possessed an 
authority fully equal to that which was given to 
Peter. 

It has already been shown that the letters of 
Peter are entirely devoid of all claims to any especial 
authority. Peter never compares himself with the 
other apostles as Paul does ; much less does he 
claim for himself any position higher than that of 
an apostle ; nor does he anywhere in his writings, 
refer to himself as having authority to command. 
But while this is true of Peter, the most casual 
reader of the letters of Paul cannot fail to notice 
the authoritative manner in which they are written ; 

[122] 



EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. 123 

and when we read them with this idea in mind, we 
shall be astonished at the number and variety of 
the expressions of this character. 

It may be remarked first that Paul would never 
allow that he had received the gospel or the apostle- 
ship from any man. He received both from Christ 
himself, acting through no intermediary persons. 
The call which came to him as he was on the way 
to Damascus was as clear and distinct as the call 
to Peter, James, and John by the sea of Galilee ; 
hence he was the equal of any of the apostles. 
Notice the opening words of his letter to the Gala- 
tians : ''Paul, an apostle, (not of men neither by 
man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who 
raised him from the dead)." Gal. i : i. Again: 
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which 
w^as preached of me is not after man. For I 
neither received it of man, neither was I taught 
it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. . . . But 
when it pleased God, who separated me from my 
mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to 
reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him 
aniong the heathen; immediately I conferred not 
with iiesh and blood : neither went I up to Jeru- 
salem to them which were apostles before me." 
Verses ii, 15-17. Again: "But of these [the 
other apostles, including Peter] who seemed to be 
somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no 
matter to me : God accepteth no man's person : ) 
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference 



124 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

added nothing to me." Chapter 2 : 6. Notice that 
at this visit Paul saw Peter (Gal. i : 18), and yet 
he emphatically declares that he received nothing 
from any of them, and in concluding his statement, 
he relates that on one occasion he was obliged to 
withstand Peter to his face. 

Paul would not allow even that his knowledge of 
the Lord's supper was received from the other 
apostles. (See i Cor. 11 123.) Really, as far as 
Paul's knowledge of the gospel was concerned, he 
declared his entire independence of all the other 
apostles. Not that he would not advise with them 
and be advised by them ; but in the particular 
sphere to which God had called him, — the work 
for the Gentiles, — he followed the leadings of his 
own mind, guided by the Spirit of God. If Peter 
had been the head of the church, — had taken 
Christ's place as his vicegerent on earth, — could 
Paul have said such things ? Could he have as- 
serted his independence of the whole body of the 
apostles ? Could he have said, They ' ' added 
nothing to me " ? The only way this independence 
of Paul can be understood is to believe that he 
recognized Christ as the only head of the church ; 
and having received his call to preach the gospel 
directly from the Head of the church, he did not 
feel under any particular obligation to receive 
directions from man. 

The attention of the reader is now directed to 
some expressions used by the apostle Paul, illustra- 



EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. I25 

tive of his claim to authority. In his letters, he 
speaks of the gospel as " my gospel." (See Rom. 
2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2 : 8.) The general title of 
the gospel is, "The gospel of Jesus Christ," and 
that is, of course, its true title ; notwithstanding, 
Paul sometimes speaks of the gospel as ''my 
"gospel." No doubt the fact that a special dispen- 
sation of the gospel had been committed to him, is 
one reason for his use of this expression. Another 
reason is that he had so identified himself with the 
gospel that he felt that it was his. Be that as it 
may, there is no expression in Peter's letters claim- 
ing so much for himself. Had there been, and had 
Peter been the only apostle to make use of such 
an expression, even though he had used it but 
once, judging from the way which some sayings 
of Christ's are laid hold of by Catholics to prove 
Peter's superiority, such a saying would have been 
regarded as evidence that, since the departure of 
Christ to heaven, the gospel had passed into the 
hands of his successor, Peter. Unfortunately for 
those who cling to Peter's supremacy, this peculiar 
expression, which sounds like a proprietary claim 
to the gospel, was used by Paul, and no such ex- 
pression, nor anything equivalent to it, can be 
found in the writings of Peter. 

Again, there is nothing in the letter of Peter 
urging any one to follow him. He declares that 
" Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, 
that we should follow his steps" (i Peter 2 : 21) ; 



126 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and he describes the behevers as a wandering flock 
of sheep which has returned to the Shepherd and 
Bishop of their souls, referring unmistakably to 
Christ. But he never speaks of himself as being 
leader, nor asks his converts to follow him. But 
it is a remarkable fact that Paul admonishes his 
converts to follow Jiim, — to be his followers. 
Thus he says : ' ' For though ye have ten thou- 
sand instructors in Christ, yet, have ye not many 
fathers : for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you 
through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be 
ye followers of mc.'' i Cor. 4 : 15, i6. 

What makes this passage of Scripture especially 
damaging to the pretension that Peter was the 
head of the church, is the fact that these words 
were written to the brethren in Corinth because of 
the spirit of division which existed among them. 
Some were claiming to be followers of Paul, others 
of Apollos, and others of Peter. Paul rebukes 
them, telling them that the apostles are nothing 
but men by whom they had believed, that Christ 
is the only foundation, and finally says to them in 
the text quoted, *' Be ye followers of me." Espe- 
cially should we keep the fact in mind that he urges 
them to be followers of himself, when at this very 
time many were inclined to follow Peter. This 
does not necessarily prove that Paul was setting 
himself above Peter or the other apostles. He 
himself had planted the gospel in Corinth, teaching 
the true principles of the gospel as they had been 



EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. 127 

communicated to him by revelation. Hence he 
asked that they, as his spiritual children, should 
follow his teachings, not giving preference to any 
man in the church, but taking Christ as their only 
Leader. Thus he says (i Cor. ii : i), " Be ye fol- 
lowers of me, even as I also am of Christ." No 
doubt it was in this secondary sense that Paul 
asked the Corinthian brethren to follow him. But 
suppose that Peter, describing a contention among 
brethren who were in disagreement as to which 
apostle they should follow, had used such ex- 
pressions as Paul did, and then said, ' * Be ye fol- 
lowers of me, " would not those who hold the idea 
of Peter's supremacy over the other apostles and 
his primacy in the church, take it to be a clear 
case of an assumption of authority, and the posi- 
tion of leadership in the church ? — Evidently they 
would. They would say that as Christ had said, 
"Follow me," so Peter, his successor, said, "Fol- 
low me." Again, we must say that, unfortunately 
for those who believe in the supremacy of Peter, it 
was not Peter but Paul, who said to the brethren 
who were looking to Peter and Apollos as leaders, 
"Be ye followers of me." 

We will now consider Paul's words in i Cor. 
i6 : 22 : " If any man love not the Lord Jesus 
Christ, let him be Anathema," that is, let him be 
accursed. The power to curse is certainly a great 
power. It was possessed by Christ, but he used it 
very rarely, declaring that he came not to condemn 



128 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

the world, but that the world through him might 
be saved. Nowhere in the letters of Peter is there 
anything like a curse, which, considering the free 
use of curses by the popes of Rome, who claim to 
be his successors in office, is a little remarkable. 
But the letters of Paul were of so authoritative a 
character, and were couched in language so strong, 
that his enemies charged him with seeking to ter- 
rify the people by his letters. Thus he says : 
"For though I should boast somewhat more of 
our authority, which the Lord hath given us for 
edification, and not for your destruction, I should 
not be ashamed : that I may not seem as if I would 
terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, 
are weighty and powerful ; but his bodily presence 
is weak, and his speech contemptible." He then 
adds : ' ' Let such an one [who thought that Paul's 
authority was all in his letters] think this, that, 
such as we are in word by letters when we are 
absent, such will we be also in deed when we are 
present." 2 Cor. io:8-ii. 

The authority manifested by Paul, even when 
he was absent, is shown in i Corinthians 5. There 
was a vile person in the church at Corinth. Writ- 
ing to that church, Paul makes this strong declara- 
tion : ' ' For I verily, as absent in body, but present 
in spirit, have judged already, as though I were 
present concerning him that hath so done this 
deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when 
ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the 



EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. 1 29 

power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an 
one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 
Jesus. . . . Therefore put away from among your- 
selves that wicked person." Verses 3-5, 13. Thus 
Paul claimed authority to discern the wrong in a 
person separated from him by a long distance, and 
to exclude him from the church, which authority 
he actually exercised. There is nothing in either 
of the letters of Peter that indicates that he claimed 
or exercised such authority and power. (See also 
I Tim. I : 20, and Philemon 8.) 

Another expression of Paul's, found in i Cor. 
14 : 37, is so suggestive of power and authority as 
to be worthy of note. *' If any man think himself 
to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge 
that the things that I write unto you are the com- 
mandments of the Lord. " The claim that the 
commandments which he had been giving to the 
Corinthians in this letter were the commandments 
of the Lord, far exceeds any statement bordering 
on authority and power to be found in the writings 
of Peter. Indeed, if the authorship of these writings 
could be reversed, could Peter have written what 
Paul wrote, and Paul have been the author of Peter's 
letters, an argument for the primacy of Peter and 
his supremacy might have been built upon Peter's 
letters, while nothing of the kind can now be donCo 

Another argument for the supremacy of Paul 
might be built upon his words in 2 Cor. ii : 28. 



130 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

In this chapter Paul contrasts his own labors with 
those of certain false apostles, in order to prove his 
own apostleship. He calls attention to his labors, 
stripes, imprisonments, shipwrecks, journeyings, 
and perils of various kinds, and then adds these 
very significant words : ' ' Beside those things that 
are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the 
care of all the churches." According to these 
words of Paul, upon whom rested the burden of 
not one church but of all the churches ? — Upon 
Paul himself. Undoubtedly these words are lim- 
ited in their application to those churches of the 
Gentiles which he had raised up himself, or which as 
the apostle to the Gentiles, he felt to be under his 
especial care. This would certainly include the 
church at Rome ; for Paul's letter to the church in 
Rome, which of itself is abundant evidence of Paul's 
care for the church in that city, was written the 
same year as the second letter to the Corinthians, 
wherein he claims to have the burden of all the 
churches upon him ; and we have before abun- 
dantly shown that Peter could not have been in 
Rome at the time the letter to the church at Rome 
was written. So taking Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 
1 1 : 2 in connection with the fact that he wrote his 
letter to the brethren at Rome the same year, and 
applying the apostle's language only to the Gentile 
churches, the evidence is conclusive that Paul con- 
sidered the church at Rome under his especial 
care. Hence it could not have been under the care 
of Peter. 



EXPRESSIONS OF AUTHORITY. I3I 

Furthermore, it is pertinent to the question under 
discussion to ask, What would be the position of 
Cathohcs upon this text, had it been found in the 
writings of Peter instead of those of Paul ? Had 
Peter declared in a letter to the church at Cor- 
inth, almost simultaneously with one written to the 
church at Rome, that upon him rested the care 
of all the churches, would they not adduce it as 
satisfactory proof that Peter was the head and 
primate of the church ? — They certainly would. 
This text would be laid beside Matt. i6 : i8 as 
another proof of the primacy of Peter and his 
headship over all the churches. 

Other texts, which show Paul's claim to author- 
ity in contrast with the failure of Peter to make 
such a claim, might be presented, but these will 
suffice. The careful student of the Scriptures, 
having had his mind called in this direction, will 
be able to discover them himself. 

Finally, we may say that in Paul's letters there 
is an assumption of more authority in all matters 
pertaining to the church than can be found in those 
of Peter. Directions in regard to the most difficult 
and delicate questions, such as marriage and di- 
vorce, the training of children, and the conduct of 
servants, are given by Paul. The duties of deacons 
and bishops are discussed by him, and the qualifica- 
tions necessary to fill those positions are minutely 
described. i Timothy 3. The subject of raising 
means for the work of the gospel ministry, and 



132 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

directions for the maintenance of widows and or- 
phans, are also treated by Paul. In short, so many 
things concerning such a variety of subjects con- 
nected with the organization and development of 
the church are presented by Paul, that without 
them we would not know what to do in very many 
things which are now clear to us. Had these very 
important directions, which naturally suggest the 
highest kind of authority, been given by Peter, a 
much stronger argument might be made for his su- 
premacy than can now be presented. Hence we 
conclude that a comparison of the writings of the 
two apostles in question, shows far greater assump- 
tions of power and authority on the part of Paul 
than are made by Peter, — a conclusion which is 
exceedingly damaging to the claim that Peter was 
the supreme head of the church. 



CHAPTER X. 



HOW THE OFFICE OF BISHOP BECAME HIGHER 
THAN THAT OF ELDER. 

IT has been shown from the Scriptures that a 
primacy was not established among the apostles ; 
that such a thing was entirely unknown in the 
primitive church ; that no one of the apostles was 
clothed with power above his fellows ; that one 
was head, even Christ, and that they were all 
brethren, occupying a common level. This being 
true, it therefore follows that there can be no such 
thing as a sitccessioit to the primacy ; for there can 
be no succession to that which never existed. In- 
deed, in all the New Testament there is no hint of 
a succession of this kind, and no regulation as to 
how a successor to the primacy was to be elected 
or appointed. Paul laid down explicit directions 
in regard to ordaining elders, or bishops, and 
deacons, and the duties which pertained to their re- 
spective offices, but he makes no mention of the 
way a primate was to be initiated into his office, or 
what his duties were ; and as we have seen, where 
the officers which God has placed in his church are 
called by name, no primate is mentioned. Eph. 
4 : 10, 1 1 ; I Cor. 12 : 28. 

[133] 



134 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Between the ascension of Christ and the time of 
the writing of the last portion of the New Testa- 
ment, there was a period of about sixty years ; yet 
there is no mention in these latest writings of the 
apostles, of any primacy after Jesus Christ, the only 
true Head of the church, had gone to heaven. In 
the gospel by St. John and in the Revelation (both 
of which were written subsequent to the death of 
Peter and after the establishment of his successor 
in the primacy, supposing that there were a primacy), 
there is no mention of any change of this kind. In- 
deed there is evidence in the book of Revelation 
to show that Rome did not occupy a very im- 
portant position in the church at that time. 

It is generally believed that the remarkable 
visions called ' ' The Revelation " were shown to John 
about the year a. d. 96. What John received by 
this revelation was to be communicated to the 
whole church of Jesus Christ, which is represented 
in a vision under the figure of seven churches. 
That Christ is represented as walking in the midst 
of the seven golden candlesticks, which are ex- 
plained to be synonymous with the seven churches, 
would indicate that something more than seven 
literal churches is meant, even the whole Christian 
Church, in which Christ walks, and which he 
directs. 

It is reasonable to conclude that the seven 
churches which would be selected to represent 
the whole church, would be churches of the first 



THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. 1 35 

importance — churches in whose conditions there 
would be something very striking in character, and 
suggestive of the whole church. Now, if the church 
at Rome were the chief church, and the seat of the 
primate of the church for all time, it would seem 
that such conditions would make it one of the 
churches fit to represent the whole church ; for if 
Rome alone stands for the whole church, as Catho- 
lics claim, it surely w^ould present conditions suit- 
able so that it might be selected as one of the seven 
churches to represent either a part or the whole 
of the church universal. But seven churches are 
chosen by the Lord to represent the whole church, 
and Rome is not one of these selected churches. So 
the whole church can be fitly represented, and the 
church which claims to have the primacy be left out. 
It is also certain that there is no evidence to 
prove that any one place or city was to attain to a 
greater and more permanent importance to the 
cause of Christ than another, or that such a place 
or church should be the center of the work of the 
gospel, — certainly not that Rome should be thus 
honored. The church of Christ is not confined 
to one locality ; it is a world-wide church with a 
world-wide message. Why, then, should it be lo- 
calized even in name } The theory of a primacy, 
with a local and permanently established place for 
the exercise of that authority, is entirely contrary, 
not only to the Scriptures, but to the whole spirit 
and genius of Christianity as well. 



136 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

It is argued that the city of Rome was the proper 
place for the head of the church, because the 
church was to be world-wide, and Rome was then 
the capital city of the world. But granting that 
Rome was such at the time of the organization of 
the church, that condition did not always remain. 
Then, as surely as the time should come when 
Rome would not sustain that relation to the world, 
the headship of the church would have to be trans- 
ferred to that city, which in the onward march of 
nations would take the place of Rome as the cen- 
ter of worldly power. 

As a matter of fact, the center of influence of 
Christianity has changed several times. Jerusalem 
was at first the center of the church's influence. 
The apostles were there, and the first Christian 
council was held there. Later, Antioch became an 
important center for the propagation of the gospel. 
No doubt, in course of time, Rome became the 
same. Other cities like Alexandria, and later still, 
Constantinople, shared with Rome the honor of 
being great centers of Christian influence ; but there 
is nothing in the Scriptures to prove or in reason 
to require that Rome or any other city should be- 
come the seat of supreme authority and influence 
in the Christian church. Why should the name of 
that heathen power which had always been an 
antagonist to Christianity be foisted upon the 
church of Christ.? The word *'Rome" has not 
now the signification which it once had. When 



THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. 13/ 

Rome ruled the world, the name "Roman Catho- 
lic " (universal) was not so strange nor out of place; 
but the Roman Empire has passed away, and to- 
day there are several empires greater than Rome 
was in her palmiest days. Since the name of 
Rome is now associated only with the thought of 
departed greatness, it is far from being an appro- 
priate name for the universal and progressive Chris- 
tian church. It is a local name applied to a 
universal church, which of itself is a misnomer, and 
a contradiction of terms. 

There is no clear history of Christianity during 
the first century after Christ. The first centuries 
even are involved in much obscurity. The his- 
torian who would chronicle only actual verities, 
can find little to record concerning the church in 
the first centuries succeeding the close of the wri- 
tings and labors of the apostles. We are obliged 
to look upon the church as upon a river, which 
from an open prospect sinks suddenly out of sight, 
to reappear again later on. A few glimpses of the 
church in the years following the close of the New 
Testament history, are all that we are able to 
gain ; and even this knowledge has come down to 
us strained through such a mass of myth and tra- 
dition that very little reliance can be put upon it. 

As the church emerges from the mists of those 
unknown times into the clearer light, where we can 
once more scan her features, we certainly have the 
right to compare her with the church revealed in 

10 



138 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

the New Testament. And if, as every one will 
concede, we have the right to compare the doc- 
trines of the church when she first emerges from 
her indistinct pathway, or at any subsequent time, 
with the doctrines of Christianity as revealed in the 
New Testament, then we have an equal right to 
compare her government with that which we find 
revealed in the same Word. And if we have a right 
to reject a doctrine because it is not in the Scrip- 
tures, and is contrary to them, we have also the 
right to notice in what particulars the government 
of the church, or what pretends to be such, is con- 
trary to that revealed in the New Testament and 
practised by the apostolic church, and to reject it. 
It will be admitted by every candid person that 
there is always danger that the doctrines of the 
church, which relate more particularly to the nature 
of Christ and the duties to be performed by his fol- 
lowers, will be distorted, and in many things will 
virtually be destroyed ; but many do not seem to 
realize that there is no feature of the church so 
susceptible of rapid change as her government. 
That this is true of civil government is too well 
known to be questioned. Many a civil govern- 
ment founded on principles of equity, has rapidly 
degenerated into a despotism, where one man, or 
an oligarchy, a few acting conjointly, seized the 
reins of power. Men appointed to be the servants 
of the people, have, by a skilful manipulation of 
affairs, become instead absolute rulers. Powers 



THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. 1 39 

temporarily granted as a favor, are seized and re- 
tained as rights ; and a precedent once established 
often carries with it all the force of law. 

There is abundance of evidence to prove that 
the church has not been an exception to this 
general rule ; that she has felt the same influences 
that have affected civil governments, with very 
similar results ; that men who have spoken of 
liberty in her councils, have themselves been ty- 
rants ; that the lust for power has often led to the 
forgetting of the principles of equity and equality ; 
that powers have been first assumed and then held 
by force ; in short, that often those who should 
have been shepherds of the flock have grasped the 
scepter of rule instead of the rod of comfort and 
direction. This may be seen in all forms and 
phases of the church in her later history, and if 
she escaped this experience in the first centuries, it 
would be an exception to the general rule. 

As we study the New Testament, it becomes 
evident to us that neither Christ nor his apostles 
laid down any specific rules of church government ; 
but they taught principles, which, if they had been 
respected and carried out, would have preserved 
the church from falling into an imperial and cen- 
tralized form of government. 

In the apostolic church we find the terms 
" bishop " and "elder" used interchangeably, ap- 
plying to the same office. The word " bishop" had 
particular reference to the duties of inspection, 



I40 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

oversight, and guardianship. The word ' ' elder " 
related more to the age and dignity, and to the 
wisdom, which is supposed to accompany age. 
Peter was an apostle, but he calls himself an elder 
(i Peter 5:1); and the expression used implies 
equality — a fellow elder, one of the same kind. 
The position of a bishop, or elder, was given by 
the believers in any locality to those whom they 
believed to be worthy of that honor, under the 
advice and counsel of those by whom they had 
received the gospel. Thus Paul wrote to Titus : 
' ' For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou 
shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, 
and ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed 
thee : if any be blameless, the husband of one 
wife, having faithful children not accused of riot 
or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless," 
etc. Titus I ".5,6. Here the bishop and elder are 
classed together, the office being the same. It is 
also worthy of note that the apostolic bishops were 
married men. In Paul's letter to Timothy (i Tim. 
3 : 1-8), where the duties of the various officers of 
the church are presented, he passes from bishop 
to deacon without mentioning the office of an elder 
— a substantial proof that the office of a bishop and 
that of an elder are identical. As those only could 
be ordained who had a good report and whom the 
congregation could recommend, it is apparent that 
the work of setting apart a man to the office of 
bishop, was the mutual work of the presbyters, or 



THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. I4I 

elders, and the members of the church. Clement, 
who was one of the early bishops, lays down the 
rule as having come from the apostles, that these 
offices ** should be filled according to the judgment 
of approved men, with the consent of the whole 
community." ^ This certainly was the plan adopted 
by the apostles, as the following incident of New 
Testament history amply proves. When it became 
necessary for the apostolic church to set apart cer- 
tain men to look after special interests of the 
church, and the fact became known to the apostles, 
the responsibility of their selection, appointment, 
and ordination was suggested in the following 
language of the apostles to the brethren : * ' Where- 
fore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men 
of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wis- 
dom, whom we [apostles and the church] may 
appoint over this business." Acts 6:3. The 
brethren were to make the selection. Both the 
apostles and the brethren were to agree on their 
appointment, and then the apostles were to ordain 
them to the work by prayer and the laying on of 
hands. This mutual arrangement of responsibility 
prevented those in office from becoming a dominant 
class which should perpetuate itself without con- 
sulting with the body of the church. 

In harmony with this apostolic plan the church 
in any locality suggested and recommended those 
they thought worthy to hold such office, and the 

^Neander's "History of the Christian Religion," Vol. i, p. 189. 



142 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

apostles at the first, and later the bishops, or elders, 
of other churches, ordained them to the work for 
which they were chosen. So no man could be 
ordained unless recommended by the church where 
he belonged, and none but those who had been 
ordained had the right and power to ordain others. 
Thus the elders and the people to whom they min- 
istered, acted as a mutual check on each other, 
that neither might attain to the supremacy in the 
church. As long as this order was maintained, the 
elders, or bishops, could not become the masters 
of the church, by ordaining those who would serve 
their purposes, and thus become ' ' lords over God's 
heritage." 

In the apostolic age it was common to have sev- 
eral elders in each church. From Miletus Paul 
sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus to 
come to meet him ; and after giving them a most 
earnest exhortation, he prayed with them. Acts 
20: 17, 1 8. A plurality of elders, or bishops, in 
each church, which certainly was the custom in the 
apostolic church, is not in harmony with the later 
practise of one bishop in each church, who alone is 
the repository of authority. 

The transition from the apostolic system of a 
body of elders in each church, all acting in concert, 
to that of the later system, when one man held all 
the power in the church, like many changes which 
have taken place in civil government, came about 
•by degrees. It seems to have been a common 



THE OFFICE OF BISHOP. I43 

custom for the elders of a church to select one of 
their number who was noted for his learning and 
ability, to present the doctrines of Christ, and make 
him an especial overseer over a church or section 
of country, containing many churches. From this 
simple arrangement, in which there was nothing 
wrong in itself, only as it led to something worse, 
the superiority of the bishop over the other elders 
grew. 

Chosen by the elders of the church, and also by 

■ all the members of the local church, to act as a 
presiding elder, or presbyter, it was an easy step to 
the position that the office of a bishop was a higher 
office than that of an ordinary elder. This path 
once entered upon, it became impossible to stop, 
until there were several gradations of rank in the 
clergy, each step making a central head apparently 
more indispensable, until from the simple and 
democratic form of church government taught by 
Christ and illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles 

* and in the letters of Paul and Peter, there was 
evolved an imperial form of church government. 
This was modeled much after the form of the civil 
government of Rome in that day of absolute rule, 
with an earthly head and several gradations of 
rank, all doing what Peter expressly disclaims 
doing — lording it over God's heritage (i Peter 
5 : 3), and actually ruling the church after the 
manner of civil government in those despotic times. 
Thus the simple plan of equality and general coun- 



144 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

sel, which prevailed in the days of the apostoHc 
church, gradually changed to a form of church gov- 
ernment entirely different in all its conditions and 
relations. The clergy were elevated above the com- 
mon members, and the church thereafter was com- 
posed of two distinct and separate classes, — the 
clergy and the laity. Here was a close reproduc- 
tion in the church, of the same conditions which 
were peculiar to the Roman commonwealth, — the 
two classes of the patricians and the plebians. The 
patrician class of clergy in the church was not, it 
is true, perpetuated by birth; but since the work of 
selection of candidates for the priestly office, and 
their preparation for their work was entirely in the 
hands of the clergy, they became, like the patri- 
cians, a class perpetuating itself. And as the pa- 
tricians held the plebians in civil bondage, so the 
new order of religious patricians held in bondage 
those who were under them. 



CHAPTER XL 



DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CLERGY DEVELOPED 
MAKE A SINGLE HEAD NECESSARY. 

WHEN the office of bishop became well estab- 
lished as a separate and higher office than 
that of presbyter, or elder, another easy and natural 
step was a similar classification among the bishops, 
making a division amon*g them, and the establish- 
ment of another and still higher order of clergy. 
The natural respect which younger bishops would 
have for those of more mature years, and their 
feelings of fealty toward those who had brought 
them into the gospel, taught them the truths of 
Christianity, and consecrated them to the work of 
the ministry, led the younger bishops to give to the 
elder the preference. This favor, no doubt, the 
elder bishops were not loath to receive, especially 
as they did not see to what it would eventually lead. 
It soon became customary to locate several new 
bishops around an elder bishop, that they might be 
advised by him. The larger towns and cities were 
the seats of these noted bishops, called by way of 
distinction, " Bishops of the First See." Afterward 
they became known as "Metropolitan Bishops," 

[H5] 



146 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and they exercised an authority in accordance with 
the size of their respective sees. This custom be- 
came so well established that when the Council of 
Nicea was held in A. d. 325, the superiority of the 
metropolitan bishops over other bishops was recog- 
nized as established by iisagc, and hence it was 
sanctioned by the church.^ 

When the most deplorable step in the history 
of Christianity was taken, and Christianity was 
made the state religion of the Roman Empire, in 
the days of Constantine, additional authority was 
given to a metropolitan bishop, and the district 
over which he presided was called his province, 
which generally had the same bounds as the ter- 
ritory ruled by the civil governor. This distinction 
between simple and metropolitan bishops having 
been secured, there was nothing in the way of the 
permanent establishment of a higher order of bish- 
ops, regularly appointed, with a district composed 
of several bishoprics. The office of archbishop 
was therefore established. Archbishops were dis- 
tinctively introduced in the fourth century. The 
express term "archbishop" was first applied by 
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, to his prede- 
cessor, Alexander. Gregory Nazianzen followed 
the precedent thus set, and subsequently applied 
the term to Athanasius himself. 

The first writer to mention archbishops as a 
separate and higher order of bishops, was Isidore, 
bishop of Seville, who was born about A. d. 570, 

1 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. iii, art. Bishop, p. 787. 



A SINGLE HEAD NECESSARY. 1 47 

and died A. d. 630. The title had, however, been 
known since about the year 320, Alexander, bishop 
of Alexandria, having been called archbishop by a 
historian of that period. At the council of Car- 
thage (a. d. 397), this extra title was ordered to be 
laid aside, many evidently foreseeing what the end 
of such a course would be; and it was further 
decreed that the ancient title of " Metropolitan of 
the First See " be again resumed. But this partial 
return to first principles did not last long ; the tide 
was setting strongly toward higher ranks of clergy 
and permanent central authority, and at the, council 
of Ephesus (a. d. 431), the title of archbishop was 
given to the three great metropolitan -bishops of 
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.^ Later these 
archbishops took the title of "patriarchs." After- 
ward the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem 
were granted the same title, each holding a similar 
authority. The title of patriarch is still found in 
the Catholic Church, but it now has only a nom- 
inal meaning. In the Eastern, or Greek Church, 
the title is still retained, and the Greek patriarch 
holds about the same position as the Catholic 
archbishop. 

The manner of the appointing of the bishops, 
also underwent a great change. At first they were 
selected by the people, the brethren of each local 
church, and could be deposed by them. The bish- 
ops soon resisted this apostolic arrangement as a 
restraint upon their rights, and gained their inde- 

^ Mc Clintock and Strong's Encyclopedia, Vol. i, p. 368. 



148 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

pendence from the people, together with an author- 
it}- to rule them. Thus the bishops and all the 
clergy gradually grew into a privileged class, hold- 
ing their offices for life, and amenable only to their 
superiors, — a new order of spiritual nobility, which 
perpetuated itself. When Constantine became em- 
peror of Rome and the patron of Christianity, he 
took the appointment of the bishops into his hands. 
The Christians, broken in spirit by past persecu- 
tions, and thankful for the security which he 
afforded them, were willing to allow him to do 
about as he pleased. 

Other kings followed his example, and appointed 
the bishops in their kingdoms. Thus the bishops, 
and the church which they represented, became 
adjuncts to the civil power, and in many respects 
the creatures of the state. When the bishop of 
Rome gained paramount authority in the Western 
Church, the appointment of the bishops became 
the cause of much controversy between the bishops 
of Rome and the kings of the different countries. 
Contentions of this kind even now frequently occur 
between the kings of Europe and the later suc- 
cessors of the early bishops of Rome. 

Thus from the primitive system, by which the 
elders were on a basis of absolute equality, being 
elected by the suffrages of all the Christian people 
in any locality, there had arisen by the middle of 
the fifth century, several successive ranks of clergy, 
dependent for their office upon kings or the supe- 



A SINGLE HEAD NECESSARY. 1 49 

rior bishops. The highest order of this superior 
clergy was confined to five persons, — the bishops 
of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Con- 
stantinople. 

The first step taken in a wrong direction led to 
another ; and in the creation of archbishops of the 
five great cities of Christendom at that time, only 
one more step was necessary to have one primate 
over all, — a visible and single head of the recog- 
nized church of Christ on earth, usurping the place 
of Christ, the true and invisible Head. 

At the present time and for some centuries in 
the past, the College of Cardinals has formed a 
body of ecclesiastics of a higher order than the 
archbishops ; but the order of cardinals did not 
arise in the same way that the other orders of 
superior clergy in the Latin Church arose. The 
order of cardinals, as personal attendants and ad- 
visers of the pope, was created by the primate after 
the primacy was established. Stephen IV (770) 
was the first pope who began to select priests in 
the city of Rome for special purposes, from which 
act the College of Cardinals grew. The Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica says that " the thing and the 
name were at no time appointed and created, but 
gj'ezv up by successive and mainly abusive en- 
croachments legitimatized by usance, and from 
time to time more formally by papal briefs and 
bulls." ^ At first there were seven. The number 
was enlarged at various subsequent times, until "it 

1 Vol. V, p. 96. 



150 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

was finally settled that there should be seventy. 
The composition of the College of Cardinals was 
not fully settled until it was so established by a 
bull of Sixtus V, issued Dec. 3, 1585.^ 

It is now the settled policy of the Roman Church 
that the candidate for the papal chair must be 
selected from the College of Cardinals, and only 
cardinals can vote for the election of a pope. As 
the cardinals are almost universally Italians, a 
pope of another nationality than Italian, is rarely 
elected. Hence the primate of what claims to be 
the universal church of Christ, is almost always an 
Italian, and elected by men of his own nationality. 
This practically amounts to an Italian primacy, 
and none but Italians may hope for the oiiice. 

^ See Encyclopedia Britannica as quoted above, and Mc Clintock 
and Strong, Vol. ii, art. Cardinal, p. 119. 



CHAPTER XIL 



GREAT EVENTS WHICH OPENED THE WAY FOR 
THE PRIMACY. 

A SUPERIOR order of clergy, confined to the 
bishops of the principal cities of the Roman 
Empire, having become established, the greatest 
obstacle to an absolute primacy in the church was 
removed. It only remained to take one more step 
in the same direction, and settle upon which one 
of the "Metropolitans" this headship should be 
bestowed. 

During the time that these several independent 
primates were rising to power, important and mo- 
mentous events in Roman history occurred, which 
greatly helped to secure the first place for the 
bishop of Rome. One of these events was the 
removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Con- 
stantinople, the new city on the Bosporus, which 
was carried out by Constantine in the year A. d. 
330. The seat of the civil power was by this act 
transferred from Rome to Constantinople. 

Left in the West, a metropolitan bishop, with 
the greatest spiritual powder of any one in that 
country ; located in the ancient capital of the 

[151] 



152 THE SUrKKMACV OF PETER. 

Roman Empire, with nuiny things of a civil nature 
continually thrust upon him ten- his decision ; re- 
moved by a loui;- distance in tliose days of slow 
communication, from the civil power at Constanti- 
nople, and also from the bishops of the other 
metropolitan sees, which claimed an equality with 
him; with all the bishops oi the West looking to 
him for the decision of all important matters; and 
with the i">restii;e \\hich came (voiu his position as 
the bishop o{ tiie ancient cMpital. it is ncU very sur- 
prising that the bishop of Rchuc should begin to 
cherish schemes o{ ambition and absolute authority. 

The Roman emperor e\ idcntly thought that the 
East would constitute the strongest part of his Em- 
pire ; but the f;nis oi histor}' slunv that the East 
had had its da\ . and that the power which should 
gain the c\>ntrol oi the West would darect the future 
course oi the world. The rcnuwal oi the seat of 
empire from Konie to C\>nstantinoplc, by the Em- 
peror Constantinc. was therefore a \ery fa\-orable 
event to strengthen the bishop ol Rcmuc. and to 
place in his hands a great measure oi spiritual, and 
even oi temporal power. 

Another great event which tended toward a con- 
cent rat iiui of jnnvcr in the hands of the bishop of 
Rome, was the jHainanent di\ision of the Konum 
Empire into the luistern and Western divisions. 
This took place upon the death of Jovian, A. o. 364. 
His two sons, \'alentinian and \'alens. divided the 
empire between them. The empire of the East in- 



THE WAY OPENED FOR THE PRIMACY. 1 53 

eluded all the territory of the lower Danube. To 
the emperor of the West were given Italy, Illyricuni 
(a country east of Italy, adjoining the Adriatic Sea), 
and Gaul. The last-named countries composed 
the empire of the West under Valentinian. This 
emperor did not take Rome for his capital, but 
Milan, leaving the city of Rome to the bishop of 
Rome, as Constantine had done before. At this 
time, many of the bishops of the East, notably the 
metropolitan bishops of Constantinople and An- 
tioch, were followers of Arius, and hence were the 
determined opponents of the bishop of Rome. 

Limiting the empire of Rome to the ]Vcstcni 
Empire, the bishop of Rome had now become in 
reality the chief bishop of the empire. And since 
the Eastern Empire, which represented at its best, 
but an effete civilization, was soon to be exposed 
to the rising power of Mohammedanism, it is easy 
to see that the bishop who should stand at the head 
of the churches in the rising and progressive nations 
of the West, would by the very nature of his posi- 
tion establish himself with an authority greater 
than that of the bishops of the East, who had been 
wont to regard themselves as the equals of the 
bishops of Rome. Thus the way was fully opened 
for the further elevation of the bishop of Rome to 
be the head of the rising church of the West, and 
to wield an influence and authority commensurate 
with the increase of the Western nations and the 
development of their civilization, 
II 



CHAPTER XIIL 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY, 

1"^HE claim that the bishop of Rome was greater 
than other bishops because of the position of 
Rome as the metropohs, was put forth at times by 
ambitious prelates who held the bishopric of that 
city. This right was as often denied them by the 
bishops of the other great cities of the empire. At 
the Council of Nicea (a. d. 325), the expression, 
*' QiLod ccclesia Romana semper Jiabtiit priiiiatimi,'' 
was cunningly inserted by an adherent of Rome 
in the record of the council. At a later period, 
at the council of Chalcedon (a. d. 451), when the 
legate from the church at Rome read the canon in 
which this forged article had been inserted, the 
council protested against this usurpation of power 
by the Roman legate, and producing a true copy, 
declared the other to be a forgery. 

It must be borne in mind that at this time the 
question of the primacy of the bishop of Rome was 
but a question. Roman supremacy was then in a 
formative period. A council held at one place 
would favor the elevation of the bishop of Rome, 
and another council held in another place would 

[>54] 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. 1$$' 

oppose it. The bishops of the West would gen- 
erally sustain the bishop of Rome, while the bishops 
of the Ea.st would not. The preponderance of 
bishops from the East or from the West in a coun- 
cil decided whether the council would favor the 
primacy of the bishop of Rome or not. 

The council of Sardica (a. d. 343) granted to 
the bishop of Rome superior jurisdiction over the 
bishops, in that it provided that in case a bishop 
who had been deposed should desire another trial, 
application therefor had to be made to the bishop 
of Rome. Even at this time the bishop of Rome 
had no more right to convoke a council than had 
any other bishop of the metropolitan sees. It was 
probably owing to the rivalry existing among these 
primates that the emperors convoked the councils, 
and sometimes, as in the case of the Council of 
Nicea, the emperor himself presided. The action 
of the council of Sardica above referred to, was 
accepted by only a portion of the bishops present ; 
the Eastern bishops protested, and leaving the 
council in a body, held their session in the neigh- 
boring city of Philippopolis. 

Innocent I, bishop of Rome from A. d. 402-417, 
endeavored to attach a stronger meaning to the 
decision of the council of Sardica than it would 
bear, by claiming a right of authority in all ques- 
tions pertaining to the church ; and at the council 
of Ephesus (a. d. 431) the legates which were sent 
to that council from Rome, boldly asserted that the 



156 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

bishop of Rome was the head of all the churches, 
and that Peter in the person of the bishop of Rome 
could bind and loose ! 

The first bishop of Rome who gained anything 
of authority such as the later popes of Rome pos- 
sessed, was Leo I (a. d. 440-461). He put forth 
the most extravagant claims for his authority, and 
went to work in every way possible to make his 
claims good. Many bishops who had not before 
acknowledged the authority of the Roman See, sub- 
mitted to him. Among those who thus submitted 
were the bishops of Africa, Spain, and Illyria. 
Meeting much opposition from the bishop of Aries, 
he obtained a decree from Valentinian, emperor of 
the West, subjecting all the bishops of the Western 
Empire to his authority. Thus the civil head of 
Western Rome gave to the bishop of Rome what 
he had so long desired. 

For a hundred and fifty years after this signal 
victory for the bishops of Rome, the papal chair 
was occupied by men, who, while generally claim- 
ing all that Leo had claimed, had not his force of 
character. For this reason the pretensions of the 
bishops of Rome gained little during this period, 
the bishops of the East refusing to regard the 
bishop of Rome as having any more authority than 
they themselves possessed. In the course of time, 
however, the Roman pontiff gained the same help 
from the emperor of the East that had been ob- 
tained from the emperor of the West. 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. I 5/ 

Justinian, the Eastern emperor, was inclined to 
meddle very much in the affairs of the church. 
He wrote much on all kinds of religious subjects, 
and enforced his opinions by law. Whatever he 
did not believe, he held to be rank heresy. As 
might be expected, the bishops of the East, who 
did not endorse all of his views, were promptly de- 
posed from their sees. Among those thus deposed 
was Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople. 
The bishop of Rome, removed from Constantinople 
by so great a distance, was not so formidable a 
rival to Justinian as were the bishops of the East; 
hence it was probably a desire to humiliate the 
Eastern bishops which led Justinian to decree 
the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. This he 
did in the year 533. Not content with simply 
issuing this decree, he determined to show the 
bishop of Rome a more substantial favor. For 
some years Italy had been under the control of the 
Ostrogoths, a warlike tribe, who, although profess- 
ing the Christian faith, were believers in what was 
called by the bishop of Rome the " Arian heresy." 
Their presence in Italy, and especially in Rome, 
was a standing menace to the bishop of Rome, 
and the supremacy which at that time he was 
seeking. The invasion of Italy was therefore or- 
dered by Justinian, and his most famous general, 
Belisarius, took command of the army. The cam- 
paign was successful. The Ostrogoths were ex- 
pelled from Rome, and the bishop of that city 



158 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

was left free, at least in the West, to enjoy that 
authority which he coveted. This occurred in 538. 
Nothing can be plainer than that if all the bish- 
ops were already acknowledging the supremacy of 
the bishop of Rome, there would have been no 
necessity for a decree from an emperor making him 
supreme. And after this decree was issued, the- 
bishops of the East, who had shown small respect 
for the emperor's opinions in their controversies 
with him, paid as little attention to this decree 
in favor of the bishop of Rome. At this very 
time the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Con- 
stantinople did not communicate with each other, 
except by hurling at each other denunciations and 
excommunications.^ So the bishop of Rome, after 
this decree was made, could not exercise the power 
thus granted except over the bishops of the West, 
and this he had done before, except over the Arian 
bishops. Indeed the bishops and patriarchs of the 
East never have acknowledged the supremacy of the 
popes, and their antagonism finally led, in the elev- 
enth century, to the permanent division of the 
church. Hence three of the five patriarchs, — the 
bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, — 
who once composed a kind of an oligarchy in the 
church, when this last step in the race toward a 
universal primacy had been taken, and the bishop 
of Rome made an effort to hold what Justinian had 
pretended to give, refused to yield, and to this day 
the church which they represented has refused to 

1 See Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. xiii, p. 796. 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. I 59 

acknowledge the authority of the popes of Rome, 
though often urged to do so. 

While the bishops of Rome generally were for- 
ward to claim full authority over all the churches, 
it is worthy of remark that some were too honest 
to do so. That one of the bishops of Rome took 
strong ground against the idea of a primate in the 
church is evident from the course pursued by 
Gregory I, commonly called Gregory the Great. 
This prelate was chosen bishop of Rome by the 
clergy and the people of Rome, and his election 
was confirmed by the Emperor Maurice, A. D. 590. 
Soon after his election, as was customary in those 
days, the new bishop drew up a confession of faith, 
which he sent to those who held positions in their 
respective sees similar to that which he held in 
Rome, all the difference between them being, that 
they were called patriarchs and he pope. It must 
be remembered, however, that at that time a pope 
was only pope over the See of Rome, the title 
having a local designation, and no reference to 
any other church. 

His declaration was addressed to the patriarchs 
of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru- 
salem. In this document, referring to the first four 
councils, he said : "Whoever presumes to loosen 
the persons whom the councils have bound, or to 
bind those whom the councils have loosed, de- 
stroys himself and not them." It would appear 
from this that Gregory regarded the power to bind 



l6o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and loose as existing in the whole body of the 
church as represented in the councils, and not in 
himself, or any other bishop. That he held this 
opinion is fully proved by his contention with John, 
patriarch of Constantinople. 

This prelate, who was the contemporary of Greg- 
ory, assumed, in the year 595 a. d. , the title of ecu- 
menical, or universal bishop. Since the authority 
of the bishops had been regulated by the size and 
importance of their respective sees, and since Con- 
stantinople was at this time the actual capital of 
the entire Roman Empire, — the empire of the 
West having fallen in 476, — it is not surprising 
that the primate of Constantinople, seeing the 
natural trend of the church toward the idea of a 
central head, and desirous to secure that place 
himself, should put forth the claim that he, as 
bishop of Constantinople, should be the head of 
the church. But John found a sturdy opponent to 
his claim in Gregory. It is a remarkable fact that 
Gregory, the bishop of Rome, in combating the 
claim of the universal primacy put forth by John, 
did not hold that he (Gregory) was the true pos- 
sessor of that title and authority; but he denied the 
right of John to that title on the broad ground 
that there was no primacy in the church. He 
styled this assumption of John as ' ' proud, heret- 
ical, blasphemous, antichristian, and diabolical." 
He thus addressed the bishop of Constantinople : 
"Whom do you imitate in assuming that arrogant 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. l6l 

title ? whom but him who, swelled with pride, ex- 
alted himself above so many legions of angels, his 
equals, that he might be subject to none, and all 
might be subject to him?" 

It is clear from the above statement that Greg- 
ory recognized an equality in the church, or at 
least among the higher bishops, and that the eleva- 
tion of any of these above his fellows, he thought 
would be an act similar to that of Satan, who ex- 
alted himself above the angels of God. Thus we 
have the testimony of a bishop of Rome as late as 
the latter part of the sixth century, that there 
was in the church at that time a spirit of self-exalta- 
tion exactly like that which Paul had predicted, 
when he said that there would arise a blasphemous 
power, sitting in the temple of God, and usurping 
the place which only can be filled by the Deity. 
(See 2 Thess. 2 -.4.) In his contention with John, 
Gregory further said : "The apostle Peter was the 
first member of the universal church. As for Paul, 
Andrew, and John, they were only the heads of a 
particular congregation ; but all were members of 
the church under one head, and none would be 
called universal. If none of the apostles would be 
called universal, what will you answer on the last 
day to Christ the Head of the church universal ? 
you who, by arrogating that name (universal 
bishop), strive to subject all his members to your- 
self . But this is the time which Christ himself 
foretold ; the earth is* now laid waste and destroyed 



1 62 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

with the plague and the sword ; all things that 
have been predicted have now been accomplished ; 
the king of pride, that is antichrist, is at hand ; and 
I dread to say an army of priests is ready to receive 
him ; for they who were chosen to point out to 
others the way of humility and meekness, are 
themselves now become the slaves of pride and 
ambition." ^ 

According to this statement of Gregory's, whoso- 
ever should assume the title of universal bishop, 
would be preparing the way for antichrist, — a pre- 
diction which, like that of the high priest of the 
Jews concerning Christ, came to pass, but not in 
the way which he anticipated. It may also be seen 
by this statement of Gregory's that the idea that 
Peter was greater than the other apostles had 
gained credence in the church, though Gregory did 
not seem to see in it a basis for Peter's supremacy 
or the supremacy of any one else. His statement 
that Paul was less than Peter, squarely contradicts 
the words of Paul himself. 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11; 
Gal. 2:11. 

One of the means resorted to for the purpose of 
sustaining the Papal See, was the use of false docu- 
ments, which were represented as having been writ- 
ten by early bishops of the church at Rome. As these 
bishops had been in no way superior in authority 
to the bishops of some other cities, later Roman 
bishops who claimed superiority, were confronted 
with this fact whenever they put forth claims of 

^ Mc Clintock and Strong, Vol. iii, art. Gregory. 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. 1 63 

supremacy. It therefore appeared to some very 
zealous champions of the Roman pontificate, that 
this lack of early authority should be supplied, and 
that it was not yet too late to do it by documents 
for v/hich a great antiquity would be claimed. 
That this should be done, is not very remarkable, 
when we rem.ember that those ages were very 
prolific in false epistles, ascribed to Barnabas, 
Ignatius, Irenseus, and others. In harmony with 
this custom, one Autgar, archbishop of Mainz, 
interested himself to supply the deficiency of evi- 
dence that the early bishops of Rome claimed to 
exercise supremacy over the whole church. Autgar 
lived and officiated in his office a few years before 
Nicholas I was pope of Rome, and in some way 
these forged letters came into Nicholas's hands. 
Nicholas, who was one of the most aggressive, 
and at the same time most unscrupulous bishops of 
Rome who assisted in the formation of the papacy 
and its growth in power, was pope from 858- 
'^6'] . He asserted his authority with considerable 
success in the East, and in his efforts in the same 
direction in the West, he did not hesitate to use 
the means Autgar had provided, and which, in that 
credulous age, were very successful. Becoming 
involved in a dispute with Hincmar, the metropoli- 
tan of Rheims, who resisted his authority, Nicholas 
brought forth for the first time some dusty manu- 
scripts, of doubtful age and origin, which he claimed 
had been written by the popes of Rome of past 



164 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

ages, and which filled an otherwise great gap in the 
papal claim for the supremacy of the See of Rome. 
These manuscripts are known in history as the 
" Isidorian Decretals," since they purported to be 
a collection made by Isidore, bishop of Seville, an 
ecclesiastic of the seventh century. " When some 
doubt was raised as to the genuineness of the col- 
lection, Nicholas did not scruple to assure Hincmar 
that the originals had been lying from time imme- 
morial in the Roman archives."^ Nicholas, having 
used these forged decretals successfully with Hinc- 
mar, they became a strong weapon with succeeding 
popes, who used them to cause all other bishops 
to submit to the Papal See. Of the absolutely 
spurious character of these decretals, the following 
testimony is to the point : — 

* ' Decretals, False, otherwise called the Pseudo- 
Isidorian Canons, — the name of one of the most 
remarkable literary forgeries of which we have any 
record. It designates a collection of papal letters, 
canons, etc. , partly genuine, but mostly spurious. 
The name of the author is unknown, but they are 
ascribed in the preface to one Isidorus Mercator 
(or, according to some MSS. , Peccator), and hence 
they were long believed to be the work of St. Isi- 
dore of Seville, who died April 4, 636. Between 
Clement (died 100 [i^] A. d.) and Siricius (384-398 
A. D.), there are one hundred forged decretals, with 
some interspersed later. The forgery was perpe- 
trated by Autgar, archbishop of Mainz (826-847 
1 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. xix, art. Popedom, p. 496„ 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMACY. 1 65 

A. D.). The cheat was demonstrated by the Mag- 
deburg centuriators (15 59-1 574 a. d.). Their spu- 
riousness was first established by German Prot- 
estant critics in the sixteenth century, and is now 
admitted by all Roman Catholic writers. It ap- 
pears to have been the object of the author of 
this great fraud, to assist in freeing the church 
from secular domination."^ 

These forged decretals, which supplied the miss- 
ing links of the papal theory of a continuous 
authority of the Roman bishops over the church 
during the second, third, and fourth centuries, 
served their purpose for many centuries before the 
imposture was discovered. Indeed, at that time 
there was little tendency in the West to dispute 
whatever extravagant pretensions the bishops of 
Rome might put forth. It is not positively known 
that any of the popes inspired this forgery, but it 
is certain that several of them took advantage of 
it further to augment their own powers, and that 
they were eminently successful in so doing. It is a 
remarkable fact, which may well startle a philoso- 
pher, that ideas once fastened upon an ignorant 
and credulous people, survive in their descendants 
after they have themselves fully repudiated the 
tricks by which the imposture was perpetrated 
upon their ancestors. Thus intelligent Catholics, 
who now acknowledge the decretals to have been 
a shrewd forgery, still cling to the very doctrine 
which that forgery was designed to promote ! 

^Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 404. 



CHAPTER XIV. 



THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 

THE division of the Roman Empire in the year 
364, between Valentinian and his brother Va- 
lens, had, as we have seen, paved the way for the 
pretensions of the bishops of Rome, and also for 
the denial of the authority of the bishops of Rome 
by the Eastern bishops. When the empire was di- 
vided, three out of the five metropolitan bishoprics, 
— Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, — were 
in the Eastern Empire. The fourth, Alexandria, 
was in Africa. The churches of Africa, which had 
submitted to Eeo, bishop of Rome, having em- 
braced the Arian faith, refused to acknowledge 
the authority of the bishop of Rome ; and so, to 
carry out the decree of Justinian issued in 533, 
Belisarius was sent into Africa in the year 534, and 
by the entire destruction of the Vandal kingdom, 
the churches of Africa, or what was left of them, 
bowed the neck to Rome. All this did not affect 
the bishops of the East. They would not accept 
the authority of the bishop of Rome. 

The differences between the Eastern and Western 
Churches involved the question of the supremacy of 
[166] 



Sup. of Peter. 
12 




A Russian Metropolitan Bishop. 



THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1 6/ 

the bishop of Rome, as well as various theological 
differences. Granting that there were some differ- 
ences of doctrine, especially in regard to the use of 
images, if the Eastern bishops had regarded the 
pope of Rome as the head of the church and infal- 
lible, assuredly they would have accepted his au- 
thority, and there would have been no schism in 
the body, nor any division of the church at that 
time. They did not acknowledge this authority, 
and the patriarchs of the East always resisted the 
idea of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Oc- 
casionally one bishop of the Eastern Church might 
be found who would favor the pope's pretensions, but 
the majority of them never did ; and the millions 
of the Russian Greek Christians are a living at- 
testation of the truth that the pope could make 
only a portion of the church believe that in him 
was vested a power that other bishops did not 
possess. 

The dispute in the church over the question of 
the supremacy, began with the first assumptions of 
the bishops of Rome to sole control, and the breach 
widened as these pretensions were more diligently 
pressed. There were many mutual excommunica- 
tions until, at last, in the year 1054, Leo IX, bishop 
of Rome, placed an excommunication upon the 
whole Eastern Church, which has never been re- 
moved ; but as far as can be seen, no particular 
harm has come to that church in consequence of it. 
The Eastern Church has always strenuously main- 



1 68 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

tained the equality of the metropoHtan bishops, to 
which order the bishop of Rome had belonged. 

Later, in 1277, Paloeologus, emperor of the East, 
entered into a political union with the reigning 
pope, acknowledging his supremacy, that the pope 
might uphold him as the emperor ; but this ar- 
rangement, not being supported by the Eastern 
bishops, only lasted during the lifetime of that 
emperor. Really, neither this emperor, nor any 
other emperor, had any right to say who should be 
the head of the church, or who should hold any 
office therein. 

The question of the relation of the Church of 
Rome to the Greek, or Eastern Church, has re- 
ceived a fresh investiture of interest in our day 
from the late encyclical of the present pope, Leo 
XIII, to that church. Leo XIII, who intensely de- 
sires to reunite Christendom, has in his official 
capacity as the recognized head of the Roman 
Catholic Church, and in his assumed position as 
the spiritual father of all Christendom, issued encyc- 
licals directed both to the great body of Christians 
known as Protestants, whom he addresses as 
"separated brethren" instead of heretics as his 
predecessors have done, and to the Greek Church. 
These encyclicals plead for reunion, but only upon 
the ground that confession shall be made that the 
Roman Catholic is the true church, that it was and 
is a sin to depart from it, and that as the first and 
only basis for union, the authority of the pope of 



THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1 69 

Rome as the successor of St. Peter, and the head 
of the church, must be recognized. 

The letter of Leo XIII to the Greek Church was 
issued in Juty, 1894. As might be expected, it has 
drawn out a reply from the prelates of the Greek 
Church. This reply, which is signed by thirteen 
prelates, or " hierarchs, " is entitled, "A Patri- 
archal and Synodical Encyclical Letter to the most 
Sacred and God-Beloved Metropolitans and Bish- 
ops, and Brethren in Christ ; and to the sacred and 
reverend clergy under them ; and to the entire 
pious and orthodox community of the most Hol}^ 
Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constanti- 
nople." It will be seen by this that, although this 
letter is a reply to the letter of the pope, it is not 
addressed to the pope, who is apparently ignored, 
but to the clergy and people of the Greek Church 
itself. The letter begins by a reference to the 
"arrogant pretentiousness" of the bishops of 
Rome, and of the endeavor of the present pope to 
achieve a union of Christendom " by a recognition 
of himself as chief pontiff and supreme spiritual and 
temporal ruler." The prelates express themselves 
as also desirous for reunion, but they lay down the 
following conditions as necessary steps toward such 
a union : — 

" For the realization of the pious desire of the 
reunion of the churches, it is necessary, first of all 
things, to define some common principle and basis. 
And such secure, common principle and basis can 



I/O THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

be none other than the teaching of the gospel and 
of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils. When, 
therefore, we refer to that teaching, which re- 
mained common to the church both of the East 
and the West up to the time of their separation, it 
is incumbent on us to inquire, with a sincere wish 
to comprehend the truth, what it was that the en- 
tire body of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
Church of Christ throughout East and West be- 
lieved at that time ; and to that belief, entire and 
unaltered, we must hold fast. And whatever else 
has been added or subtracted in later times, it 
is the sacred and indispensable duty of every one, 
if he sincerely seeks the glory of God rather than 
his own glory, to set it aright, in a spirit of piety ; 
remembering that, if he proudly persist in the per- 
version of truth, he incurs a heavy responsibility 
before the impartial judgment-seat of Christ." 

Following this, the letter refers to the ' ' danger- 
ous innovations " which the bishop of Rome and 
his followers had introduced, which were not 
known or recognized by the early church, and 
describes many of them. Of the question of the 
supremacy of Peter and of the bishops of Rome 
as his pretended successors, these modern repre- 
sentatives of the ancient bishoprics of Jerusalem, 
Antioch, and Constantinople, have this to say : — 

"Overlooking, however, these material and 
weighty differences in the belief of the two 
churches, — differences created, as we have seen, 



THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. I7I 

in the West, — his [Pope Leo XIII] beatitude 
represents in his encychcal that the question of the 
supremacy of the Roman bishops is the decisive 
and only cause of discord, and refers us to original 
sources wherein to seek what it was that our fore- 
fathers thought thereof, and what was the tradi- 
tion of early Christianity. But when we do refer 
back to the fathers and to the ecumenical councils 
of the first nine centuries, we find that the bishop 
of Rome was never regarded as the supreme au- 
thority or as the infallible head of the church ; but 
that every bishop was the head and president of 
his own particular church, subject only to synodical 
decrees and to the decisions of the church at large, 
which alone is infallible. From this rule the 
bishop of Rome was in no wise exempted, as ec- 
clesiastical history shows, since the sole Eternal 
Chief and the Immortal Head of the church is our 
Lord Jesus Christ ; for ' he is the head of the 
body of the church ; ' he who has said to his 
divine disciples and apostles at the ascension into 
heaven, ' And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto 
the end of the world. ' Peter, whom the papists, 
basing themselves on the apocryphal pseudo-Clem- 
entines of the second century, have purposely im- 
agined to have been the founder of the Roman 
Church and its first bishop, — Peter is seen in 
Scripture discussing as an equal with equals in the 
Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. On another oc- 
casion he is bitterly rebuked by Paul, as it is mani- 



1/2 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

fest in the Epistle to the Galatians. The very 
gospel text to which the Roman pontiff refers, 
'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
my church,' was interpreted during the early ages 
of the church, both by the tradition and by all the 
divine and sacred fathers without exception, — as 
the papists themselves well know, — in an entirely 
different manner, and in an orthodox spirit ; the 
immovable fundamental rock on which the Lord 
built his church, and against which the gates of 
hell should not prevail, was understood metaphor- 
ically to signify the right confession which Peter 
had made concerning the Lord : ' Thou art Christ, 
the Son of the living God.' On this confession of 
faith rests firmly the saving message of gospel 
preached by all the apostles and their successors. 
Therefore, the heaven-soaring apostle Paul refers 
manifestly to this divine sentence when he declares 
by divine inspiration : ' According to the grace of 
God which is given unto me, as a wise master- 
builder, I have laid the foundation, and another 
buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed 
how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation 
can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ.' In another sense, again, he designates all 
the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the 
spiritual advancement of the faithful in Christ ; 
namely, the members of the body of Christ, * which 
is the church ; ' saying to the Ephesians : ' Now 
therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, 



THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1/3 

but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the 
household of God ; and are built upon the founda- 
tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
himself being the chief corner-stone.' Such being 
the inspired teaching of the apostles touching the 
foundation and the head of the church of God, it is 
but natural that the divine fathers, who hold fast 
to the apostolic traditions, should neither entertain 
nor conceive any idea of an absolute supremacy, 
either in the apostle Peter or in the bishops of 
Rome ; nor could they attribute to the gpspel text 
in question an interpretation wholly foreign to the 
church, but only the true and orthodox one. They 
could not invent, arbitrarily and of their own will, 
the novel doctrine of an overbearing supremacy of 
the Roman bishop as a pretended successor to 
Peter ; and this, notwithstanding that the Church 
of Rome was founded properly not by Peter, of 
whose apostolic activity in Rome, history knows 
nothing, but through the disciples of the heaven- 
soaring apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, whose apos- 
tolic ministry in Rome is, besides, clear to all." 

Following this, the letter asserts that the early 
bishops of Rome were subject to the decisions of 
the councils ; and it further describes the way in 
which the authority of the bishop of Rome had 
been advanced, and the contentions which this 
advance had aroused in this vigorous language : — 

' ' The early seeds of those absolutist pretensions 
of the papacy were sown in the pseudo-Clemen- 



174 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

tines ; but they were matured exactly at this time 
of Nicholas [I], in the so-called Pseudo-Isidorian 
Decretals, which are a mass of spurious and coun- 
terfeit royal ordinances and letters of ancient bish- 
ops of Rome, whereby, contrary to all historic truth 
and to the established government of the church, 
it was purposely put forth that primitive Christi- 
anity accorded to the bishops of Rome, unbounded 
authority over the church at large. 

" It is with sorrow of soul that we recount these 
facts. For though the papal church now admits 
the spurious and counterfeit nature of those decre- 
tals on which her arrogant pretensions are based, 
yet she refuses stubbornly to return to the canons 
and decrees of the ecumenical councils ; and on 
the approach of the end of this nineteenth century, 
she has even officially proclaimed the bishop of 
Rome to be infallible — to the amazement of the 
entire Christian world and to the widening of the ex- 
isting breach. The Orthodox Eastern and Catho- 
lic Church of Christ knows of no one infallible but 
the ineffably incarnated Son and Word of God. 
Then the Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, sub- 
scribed an Arian confession ; and likewise Zosimus, 
in the fifth century, approved of an heretical con- 
fession denying original sin ; Virgilius, in the sixth 
century, was condemned by the fifth council for 
misbelief ; and in the seventh century, Honorius, 
having fallen into the heresy of the Monothelites, 
was also condemned by the sixth ecumenical council 




PATRIARCH OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 



THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 1/5 

as a heretic ; and the popes, his successors, acknowl- 
edged and admitted his condemnation." 

From these premises the Greek Church prelates 
conclude that the Church of Rome is '' the church 
of innovations, of the falsification of the writings of 
the Fathers, of the misinterpretation both of the 
Holy Scriptures and of the decrees of the holy 
councils." The letter closes in a very belligerent 
manner by the following quotation from Gregory 
Nazianzen : ' ' Praiseworthy war is far better than 
a peace that separates us from God. " 

Taking the whole question of the division of the 
church into consideration, it is safe to say that this 
division grew more out of the assumption of power 
of the Roman bishops than from any other cause, 
and the Greek, Armenian, and Nestorian churches 
have been for more than a thousand years a rebuke 
and a protest against the extravagant pretensions 
of the bishops of Rome. In the Greek Church, to 
this day, as in the early church, the independence 
of the bishops of each other, except as their actions 
may be brought before a general council, still pre- 
vails. They remain practically as they were when 
the bishops of Rome, led away by their wild and 
wicked schemes of ambition, determined to bring 
the whole church under one center of power. 

Leaving the East, though not abating any of her 
pretensions to rule the Eastern Church, Rome 
strengthened herself in the West, by gaining con- 
trol of the vigorous barbarian hordes which broke up 



1/6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and seized the Western Empire of Rome. She 
also added many new dogmas to her creed, ending 
with the dogma of infalhbihty, in 1870. These the 
Eastern Church has not received, which, as the 
above statement of the prelates of the Greek 
Church shows, has constantly widened the breach 
between them. The Western bishops, who had 
been accustomed to look to Rome for everything, 
readily submitting to Rome, became her obedient 
servants ; and Rome from this time on grew by 
leaps and bounds, until all Europe was under her 
control, and all liberty of thought in spiritual mat- 
ters was crushed under her relentless heel. 



CHAPTER XV. 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 

FROM the time when Rome became fully estab- 
lished in the West, her history is but a repeti- 
tion of usurpations claimed and gained until we 
reach the time of Innocent III, who became pope 
in 1 198. In all the countries of the West, the 
power of the popes could not be disputed. Inno- 
cent III, being one of the ablest and most pious 
popes (in the sense of a bigoted and morose ful- 
filment of what he believed to be his duty), was 
very energetic in carrying out his schemes for 
the promotion of the welfare of the church. He 
was not satisfied with simply ruling the chiwch, 
but he aimed to rule the zvorld as well. To 
do this, he systematically intrigued in all the 
political affairs of Europe, excommunicated and 
deposed those kings or princes who showed any 
disposition to rule their kingdoms independently 
of him, and raised others whom he could con- 
trol, to fill their places. Such was the power 
which he had over the people, that even the dead 
could not be buried in countries whose kings would 
not submit to his authority. He laid down the 

[177] 



178 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

rule still held by all succeeding popes, that ' ' next 
to God he was to be honored by princes ; that their 
claim to rule was lost if they failed to serve him ; 
princes might have power on earth, but the priest 
had power in heaven ; the claim of princes to rule 
rested on human might, that of priests on divine 
ordinance. In short, all the prerogatives which 
had once attached to emperors were wrested from 
them, and transferred, with additions, to the 
popes, "^ 

It was this pope who ordered the crusades against 
the Albigenses, in which his bigoted and fanatical 
adherents sacked the city of Beziers, in France, 
and put thirty thousand people of every age, sex, 
and condition, to the sword. He also authorized 
two very important monastic orders, the Domini- 
cans and the Franciscans. The first-named order 
was to extirpate heretics ; the last-named, to teach 
the doctrines of the church. He made a fruitless 
effort to induce the patriarch of Constantinople to 
acknowledge his supremacy ; but the crusade which 
he ordered, temporarily destroyed the Greek, or 
Eastern Empire, which gave him the long-desired 
opportunity to appoint a bishop of that city. He 
also compelled the Hungarian bishops to yield 
allegiance to him. The restoration of the Greek 
Empire, shortly after this, and later, in the year 
1453, the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, 
forever put an end to the power of the popes of 
Rome over the Christians of Constantinople and 

1 Mc Clintock and Strong, Vol. iv, art. Richel, p. 591. 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 79 

the East. Thus the Mohammedan Turk? acted as 
protectors of the Greek Church, weakening it, but 
at the same time preserving it from the rule of the 
papacy, until in the Russian Greek Church the 
religion of the Eastern churches which refused to 
accept the bishop of Rome as their superior and 
head, assumed a new phase and a more independ- 
ent and vigorous growth. 

One of the successors of Innocent III, Boniface 
VIII, became pope in 1294. Like his predecessor, 
he took strong ground in favor of the absolute 
authority of the popes over kings. In a dispute 
with Philip the Handsome (fili Carissivie) , king 
of France, this prelate, in his famous bull, Aiisciilta, 
used the following language, in which the great 
difference is betrayed between the popes of those 
ages and the apostle Peter, whose successors they 
claimed to be. '* Do not, my son, imagine that 
you are not subject to the hierarch of the church. 
Whosoever may say so is an infidel. The apostle 
said, ' Here are two swords ; ' and the Lord did not 
answer there are too many, but, 'It is enough.' 
He who denies that the civil sword is in the hand 
of Peter, disregards the word of the Lord, ' Put 
away thy sword.' Both swords are given to the 
church, the spiritual and the civil. One is drawn 
for the church, the other by the church. The one 
is in the hand of kings and warriors ; but the latter 
may use it only as the will of the priests may 
permit." 

13 



l80 . THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

In the light of such a statement, how can any 
one delude himself with the idea that the Catholic 
Church claims or is content with the spiritual 
power only ? It has aspired to rule in all things. 
In how many countries has the Catholic religion 
been enforced by law ! And who but the priests 
of Rome secured the adoption of these laws ? In 
modern times, many of these laws have been 
modified, but the relics of them still disgrace the 
jurisprudence of many countries. The efforts of 
the nations of Europe and of the people of Central 
and South America to eliminate from their laws 
the various statutes favoring the Catholic Church, 
which were fastened upon them in a dark and 
credulous age, are well known. 

In the previous quotation from Pope Boniface, 
everything — supreme lordship over the church and 
the state — is claimed for the pope of Rome. He 
rules in spiritual affairs, holding the sword in his 
own hand ; and he also rules in civil matters 
through kings and warriors who hold the temporal 
sword for him ; and they must use it as the pope 
directs for the extermination of heretics and the 
propagation of the faith. Thus we see how that, 
step by step, the popes of Rome augmented their 
powers, until they placed themselves above kings. 
It would be an easy task to furnish many illustra- 
tions of this usurpation of power which may be 
cited from history, but for the sake of brevity a, 
few must answer. 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. l8l 

Innocent III, having engaged in a dispute with 
John, king of England, in regard to who should be 
bishop of Norwich, pronounced the king deposed 
from his throne, and released his subjects from 
allegiance to him. As John did not immediately 
yield, the pope called for all Christian kings and 
barons to invade England, promising those who 
should engage in this crusade, the remission of their 
sins. The king of France prepared to carry out 
this desire of the pope ; and John seeing this, and 
not having the allegiance of even his own subjects, 
so much were they under the power of the pope, 
was compelled to yield, and take the oath of fealty 
to the Papal See. He also delivered to the papal 
envoy a charter acknowledging that he surrendered 
to the pope and to his successors in office, the king- 
dom of England and Ireland, and that he and his 
heirs held these kingdoms only as in fief for the 
papacy, and agreed to pay, as a sign of his submis- 
sion, an annual tribute to the occupant of the papal 
chair, a sum amounting to seven hundred marks of 
silver for England and three hundred for Ireland. 
This was a small sum, it is true, but it was an 
acknowledgment and an annual reminder to the 
king that he held his kingdcwn only by permission 
of the Papal See. 

The king of Sicily received his investiture of 
sovereignty from the pope, and the kings of Aragon 
and Bavaria also regarded themselves as vassals of 
the Holy See. The pontificate of Innocent III may 



1 82 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

therefore be regarded as the time when all the 
claims of the papacy to authority and power, which 
at previous times could not be carried out. had 
reached a triumphant conclusion and manifest ac- 
ceptance by the sovereigns of Europe. In short, 
the pope had risen to a position among the kings 
similar to that of a king among his feudal barons. 
As the feudal barons held their estates from the 
king, on condition of service to him when he should 
demand it, so the kings of Europe held their king- 
doms on condition of their readiness to submit to 
the pope, and turn their arms against whomsoever 
he thought were dangerous to the interests of the 
church, whether they were the Saracens of Asia or 
the heretics of Europe. The crusades, ordered by 
Urban II, arc an illustration of the former, and the 
destruction of the Albigenses, by the orders of In- 
nocent III, of the latter. 

If a king would not yield to the pope, the pontiff 
would excite the other rival kings to war against 
him. Thus Pope Julius II formed a league with 
Ferdinand of Aragon, Louis XII, of France, and 
the emperor of Germany, against \^enice. After 
Venice had been humbled and the same pope be- 
came afraid of the rising power of France, a " Holy 
League " was formed, composed of the pope, Henry 
VIII of England, the king of Aragon, and the king 
of Venice, against France. This is precisely the 
same way that the kings used one feudal baron to 
humble and subdue another. 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 83 

As an illustration of the power which the popes 
had over kings and people in those ages, we notice 
the following fact from German history, which is 
well known, since it gave Bismarck occasion for 
one of his famous sayings. We refer to the 
relations of Pope Gregory VIII with Henry IV, 
emperor of Germany. Gregory, who is justly 
celebrated as the greatest of all the popes, had 
determined to make hiniself the head of all earthly 
powers. He soon had an opportunity to test his 
strength with that of the German emperor. Some 
dignitaries of the church having been engaged in 
rebellion against the emperor, Henry appealed to 
the pope to degrade them from their office. This 
the pope refused to do, and further retorted by 
demanding of the king that he answer the charges 
which some of his subjects were making against 
him. Henry, not being aware to what plenitude 
of power the bishop of Rome had risen, called a 
council of German prelates at Worms, in the year 
1076, and deposed the pope. The pope retaliated 
by excommunicating the emperor. Such effect had 
the pope's sentence on the emperor's subjects, that, 
in order to retain his position as emperor, he was 
obliged to submit to the pope. The experience 
through which he was compelled to pass to make 
his submission and receive the forgiveness of the 
pontiff, was of the most humiliating kind. Unlike 
the father in the parable of the prodigal son, the 
pope did not run to meet and forgive the humili- 



1 84 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

ated king. Henry was obliged to cross the Alps in 
the midst of winter with no attendants but his wife 
and child, and a few trusted friends. He hastened 
to the castle of Canossa, where the pope was stay- 
ing ; but the haughty pontiff, not willing to admit 
him to the castle, forced the emperor of Germany 
to spend three days and nights in the courtyard of 
the castle, in the winter season, clad only in the 
coarse shirt of a penitent, before he would relax 
his attitude of an inexorable judge long enough 
even to admit the emperor into his presence. 
Prince Bismarck referred to this event in German 
history when, in speaking of the encroachments of 
the papacy and its determined interference in the 
affairs of Germany, he made the justly celebrated 
remark, '' Germany is not going to Canossa again." 
In later times the efforts of popes to humiliate 
and dethrone sovereigns because they would not 
hold their kingdoms simply as fiefs of the See of 
Rome, were not always so successful as were those 
of Gregory with Henry of Germany. A remarkable 
instance of this kind, which marks a period of the 
decline of the power of the popes, may be seen in 
the attempt of the papacy to control England in 
the days of Elizabeth. This queen was one of the 
daughters of Henry VHI. Certainly no one had 
so good a right to say who should be the ruler of 
England as the people of England, and in 1 544, 
by an act of Parliament, Elizabeth was made heir 
to the throne, conjointly with her brother Edward 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 85 

and her sister Mary. This act was also in harmony 
with '(he wish of the king, expressed before his 
death. True, Edward VI, under the influence of 
Northumberland, had issued a royal decree pro- 
claiming Elizabeth illegitimate, but this could not 
annul the right of the people of England to choose 
their own sovereign. Edward died in 1553, and 
consequently upon the death of Mary in 1558, 
Elizabeth became the only lawful heir, and she 
accordingly took the throne. Agreeably to the cus- 
tom of those times, she at once ordered her am- 
bassador at Rome to inform the pope, Paul IV, of 
her accession to the throne. 

Since the pope feared that Elizabeth would not 
establish and maintain the Roman Catholic religion 
by law throughout her dominions, he informed the 
queen's ambassador that she being illegitimate, had 
no right to rule. It is well known, however, that 
the popes have never been so conscientious about 
the reign of those who were born in an illegitimate 
manner, when they knew that they would favor the 
pretensions of the See of Rome. The reign of 
Mary had not been objected to on that ground ; 
and as Henry VIII had most unjustly put to death 
Anne Boleyn, his wife, who was succeeded by Jane 
Seymour, the mother of Mary, Mary herself was 
just as illegitimate as Elizabeth. Indeed, Edward 
VI had declared against both Mary and Elizabeth 
on that ground ; but Mary being a Catholic, the 
pope did not object to her reign as he did to that 



l86 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

of Elizabeth. Still the illegitimacy of Elizabeth was 
the ostensible ground upon which the pope refused 
to acknowledge her right to the throne. He also 
demanded that she give up all claim to the throne 
of England and submit to his decision. Elizabeth 
refused to allow the pope to decide who should be 
the sovereign of England, and the English people 
have, to the present time, with great unanimity 
sustained her in that decision. 

Twelve years later, Pope Pius VI by a bull re- 
leased her subjects from allegiance to her ; but the 
thunder of the Vatican fell harmlessly upon the 
queen and upon the island empire, which ever since 
has stood in the van of the world's progress, and 
whose sway now extends around the world. The 
pope, who looked «upon England as a barbarous 
country which he could quickly bring to terms, 
cast about to form an alliance against her, as had 
often been done by the popes under similar circum- 
stances. He found Philip H of Spain, and the 
Duke of Parma ready to carry out this project. 

He therefore promised to give the kingdom of 
England to Philip, if he would conquer the country 
and hold it as a fief, or tributary country, to the 
popes of Rome. Philip immediately prepared to 
invade England. The pope gave the blessing of 
St. Peter (.^) to the expedition, and promised to 
give also a large sum of money. Spain furnished 
the ships and soldiers necessary for so great an un- 
dertaking. The object is stated by a contemporary 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 8/ 

historian as being "to serve God, and to return 
unto his church a great many contrite souls that 
are oppressed by the heretics, enemies of our holy 
Catholic faith, which have been subjects of their 
sects and unhappiness." ^ 

To carry out this pious purpose of the pope, a 
great fleet was built, numbering in all 130 ships, 
armed with 2431 cannon, with an immense amount 
of ammunition. These ships were manned by 8052 
sailors, and they carried about 20,000 soldiers, be- 
sides many monks and priests. A department of 
the Holy Inquisition accompanied the expedition, so 
that nothing should be omitted for the conversion 
of England to the Catholic faith. Twelve of these 
ships bore the names of the twelve apostles. In 
short, it was a com.plete missionary expedition, 
after the manner of the papacy of those times. 
This formidable fleet and army left Lisbon May 
29, 1558. 

Before this fleet and army, which has since been 
known in history as the "Invincible Armada," 
started for England, the then reigning pope, Sixtus 
VI, issued a bull of excommunication against Eliza- 
beth. The following extract from it will show the 
pretensions of the popes of that time : "We do, 
out of the fulness of our apostolic power, declare 
the aforesaid Elizabeth, being a heretic, and the 
favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the mat- 
ter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of 
anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the 

^Encyclopedia Britannica, art. Armada. 



1 88 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

body of Christ. And, moreover, we do declare her 
to be deprived of her pretended title to the king- 
dom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and 
privilege whatsoever. . . . And we do command 
and interdict all and every, the noblemen, subjects, 
people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not 
to obey her monitions, mandates, and laws ; and 
those that shall do the contrary, we do strike with 
the like sentence of anathema."^ 

The end of this pope-blessed attempt to subju- 
gate England is well known. It afforded one of 
the most tragic events of history. No greater ex- 
pedition had at that time ever sailed, and none ever 
experienced a more disastrous failure. After some 
measure of ill fortune, by reason of storms, the 
Armada arrived in the English Channel. Eliza- 
beth and her people were aware of the issuing of 
the pope's bull and of the preparation and inten- 
tion of this hostile array, but both she and her 
subjects rose to the gravity of the occasion, by 
preparing to defend their rights against this semi- 
religious crusade. With a fleet much inferior in 
numbers, the English under Hawkins, Drake, Fro- 
bisher, Howard, and Byron attacked the Armada 
and completely defeated it. Fire ships were also 
used by the English with great success, and the 
Spanish fleet soon became entirely demoralized. 
Even the "twelve apostles" failed to make any 
impression upon the English ships. After being 
chased up and down the channel for a few days, 

1" History of Protestantism," Vol. iii, chap. i6. 




,1PPI#P'^»/ 



iiimr' ■'' 



WiimM///////m/////iiii,wimimiiiim 'llu/ 



d 




QUEEN ELIZABETH. 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 89 

the Spaniards, captains, crews, soldiers, monks, and 
all became exceedingly anxious to return to Spain ; 
but fearing again to encounter the English fleet, 
which held the channel, it was resolved to return 
by going around Scotland. Terrible storms arising, 
the ships of the Armada were sunk or dashed 
against the rocks. The shores of Norway, Ireland, 
and Scotland were strewn with the wreckage of the 
Armada ; and many of the unfortunate sailors who 
escaped the perils of the sea and got to land, were 
either killed by the people, or were executed by the 
orders of the lord deputy of Ireland. Only a few 
vessels with their crews returned to Spain from this 
ill-starred expedition. Thus the plan to subjugate 
England to the papacy, was a most disastrous 
failure. 

To add to the mortification of Philip, the pope, 
disgusted at the failure of the expedition upon 
which he had wasted his pontifical blessing, refused 
to pay the sum of money which he had agreed to 
give, so the king of Spain was obliged to bear the 
whole expense of the expedition out of his own cof- 
fers. Since that time Spain has steadily declined 
in power. Of her once vast possessions in North 
and South America, she retains nothing. Porto 
Rico and Cuba, the "ever faithful isle," as it has 
been called, are all the lands that remain on this 
side of the Atlantic under the Spanish flag ; and the 
inhabitants of Cuba are at this time engaged in a 
rebellion and war against Spain for their independ- 



190 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

ence, which has every appearance, sooner or later, 
of being successful. To-day Spain, once one of 
the greatest kingdoms of Europe, presents the sad- 
dest spectacle of national decadence in the world. 
She has had enlightened kings who have striven to 
improve her condition, but the influence of the 
Catholic Church, to which her people are thoroughly 
devoted, has stifled all progress. No nation can 
advance unless its people are free, — free in religion 
as well as in civil affairs. Bound by priestly chains 
and with a medieval union of the church and state, 
there is no freedom nor progress in Spain. Her 
people glory in their Catholicit}', or as the historian 
Buckley declared, ''They are proud of all that 
they ought to be ashamed of." Contrast the pres- 
ent condition of Spain with that of England. In 
the time of Elizabeth, when Philip of Spain and 
the pope made their fruitless attempt to seize the 
country in the interests of the papacy, England 
was regarded as a barbarous and weak power ; but 
since then England has risen to the front rank of 
nations. Her language, spoken by only about four 
million people in the time of Elizabeth, is now 
spoken by one hundred and fifteen million people ; 
she has become the great colonizer and civilizer of 
the world, and the empire of the sea has long been 
under her control. 

The efforts of some Catholic theologians to dis- 
tort the words of Christ found in Luke 22 : 38 to 
make them justify the use of the sword by the 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. I9I 

church, is deserving of notice. The whole circum- 
stance and all the words of Christ in reference to 
the matter furnish the strongest kind of proof that 
the church is not to use the sword at all for the 
propagation of the faith. There is not the least 
evidence that the two swords were symbols of 
spiritual and civil power. It is all a gratuitous 
assumption. The probability is that Christ's refer- 
ence to the sword as a means of preparation for 
the future work of his disciples was purely figura- 
tive. Now that he was about to be crucified, the 
burden of the work was to fall upon his disciples. 
A warfare was before them, and they must be 
ready to engage in it. It is not at all likely that 
he intended that his disciples, as they went out to 
preach of peace and love, should actually carry 
swords ; nor have we any reason to believe that 
they ever did so. They were to be sent out as 
lambs among wolves, not as wolves among lambs, 
or as wolves among other wolves. 

That the gospel should be enforced by the sword 
is contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity. 
That the disciples at that time understood him as 
meaning real swords is not strange ; for they were 
very liable to misapprehend the spiritual truths 
which he taught. One of them said, ' ' Behold, here 
are two swords." Said Jesus, *'It is enough." 
Now if it were right to enforce the gospel by the 
power of the sword, two swords would not be 
enough, for every believer would need a sword. 

14 



192 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Peter, naturally a ver}^ bellicose man, had evidently 
carried a sword, as was customary in that day and 
country, perhaps as a means of defense against 
robbers, or to be used in setting up the kingdom, 
which he supposed that Christ was soon to estab- 
lish. There were but two swords in the hands of 
all the disciples ; only one of these was in the 
hands of Peter. So, if one sword represents the 
spiritual power and the other the civil, Peter 
could have only one of these powers given to him, 
and some one of the other disciples had the other ! 
Peter was the only one who ventured to use his 
weapon, and he was rebuked for using it. Evi- 
dently, some of the apostles were still depending 
upon carnal weapons ; and this experience was a 
necessary lesson for them and for future genera- 
tions. It looks as though Peter was permitted to 
carry a sword until this time, when the evil of 
depending upon a sword was declared to be wrong, 
in an unmistakable manner. Surely, if ever a 
Christian would be justified in drawing a sword, it 
was when Christ, the head of the church, was in 
danger of losing his life. But no sooner had the 
overzealous Peter used his sword than his divine 
Master showed the difference between Peter's idea 
of how the gospel work was to be carried on and 
his own, by healing the wound made by Peter's 
stroke. He then said to Peter, ' ' Put up again thy 
sword into his place : for all they that take the 
sword shall perish with the sword." Matt. 26 : 52. 



GREAT PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 1 93 

In view of this plain statement how can any one 
claim the right of the church to advance the gospel 
by the use of the sword, or that which the sword 
here stands for, — the civil power? The apostle 
Paul has left us something upon this point which is 
worthy of being inserted here : ' ' For though we 
walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 
for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but 
mighty through God to the pulling down of strong- 
holds." 2 Cor. 10: 3, 4. Christ's statement that 
' ' all they that take the sword shall perish with the 
sword," must apply universally. The papacy has 
used and justified the use of the sword for the ex- 
altation of itself. It has also, to some extent at 
least, experienced the curse of it. 



CHAPTER XVL 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 

I^HE *' temporal power of the pope" is an ex- 
pression which has a variety of meanings. It 
may apply to the authority which he claims over 
the temporal affairs of kingdoms. In past ages 
this authority was acknowledged by many kings ; 
indeed it was customary, during the Middle Ages, 
for a king upon his accession to the throne to take 
an oath that he would protect and defend the 
Roman pontiff, which was a kind of an acknowledg- 
ment that he held his kingdom in a feudatory rela- 
tion to the Holy See. This temporal authority 
grew out of the spiritual authority which the pope 
claims over all Catholic kingdoms, whose monarchs 
were supposed to profess the Catholic religion. 

This temporal authority was of two kinds. ([) 
Spiritual censures, and (2) actual coercion by 
means of threats of excommunication and the 
pains of hell, the release of the subjects of a sov- 
ereign from their allegiance and obedience to him, 
and also by the armed force of the pope and of other 
kings, who by similar means could be incited to 
recognize and obey his mandates. All these means 
were used with great effect for hundreds of years. 
[194] 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 1 95 

The temporal authority growing out of the spir- 
itual power of the pope, is the most dangerous 
form of the temporal power, and is well described 
in the following language by an English author : — 

' ' Popery creates an impeinuni in iinperio, and 
herein is one great evil of it. It gives to a poten- 
tate out of the state, and uncontrolled by it, a 
power over the state and the subjects of it ; a power 
the stronger as it is riveted on its victims with all 
the sanction of a false religion. 

** Much stress is sometimes laid upon the temporal 
power of the pope, — a power which he exercises 
in some of the Italian states, which he has as- 
sumed also over the territories of princes, which 
many Romish writers ascribe to him, and which 
has never been renounced by sufficient authority. 

" I confess, however, that I am not so anxious as 
to his direct temporal power as I am as to his spir- 
itual power exercised over temporal matters. If 
any foreign temporal prince should wage war with 
us, — should lay claim to the throne of these do- 
minions, or interfere with our domestic policy and 
arrangements, — we could, relying on the God of 
battles, bid him bold defiance. Our armies would 
again go forth victorious by land, and our fleets 
triumphant on the deep. 

"It is the spiritual tyrant whom most we dread; 
against those aggressions it is most difficult to guard. 
A tyrant whom no walls can keep out, — against 
whom no armaments can protect ; whose silent, 



196 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

secret influence prostrates the will of its submissive 
victims before it ; sows division within the camp ; 
and gains victory almost before its approach is 
known. It eludes the grasp of power. Armies and 
navies in vain oppose it. It overleaps the lofti- 
est battlements ; it penetrates the most secret re- 
cesses ; it presents itself at the council table, and 
in the cabinets of princes. Attacking everything, 
yet itself eluding the grasp of all, it seems to resem- 
ble the lot of the wandering Arab, whose hand is 
against every man, and every man's hand against 
him. One armor there is which can withstand 
it : it is the helmet of salvation and the shield of 
faith. One weapon there is which alone can hew 
it down : it is the sword of the Spirit, which is 
the word of God." ^ 

The question of the rightfulness of the pope's 
temporal power has been often discussed by Catho- 
lic writers, and various opinions have been advanced 
by them. The opinion of the extreme Catholics, 
known as the " Ultramontanes," is that the "two 
swords," referred to in Luke 23 : 38, are indicative 
of the union in the church of the spiritual and the 
temporal power. The liberal Catholics disclaim 
this view, and in 1862 the Gallican bishops united 
in a strong declaration against it. As the argument 
upon the two swords has already been referred to 
in the previous chapter of this book, it will not be 
necessary to notice it again. Moreover, it is not 

^ "The Vatican and St. James," by James Lord, pp. 28, 29. 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 1 9/ 

necessary to enter into a lengthy discussion in re- 
gard to the rightfulness of this kind of power ; for 
in its whole conception and scope it is opposed 
to the principles of the gospel taught by Jesus 
Christ. 

Christ's kingdom is not of this world. It is not 
advanced by worldly methods. Every system of 
pretended Christianity which depends to any extent 
upon the support of the civil power for its au- 
thority, support, or extension, manifests by its union 
with, and dependence upon, these things that it 
has departed from true Christian principles, and 
brands itself as an apostate church. This is true 
whether applied to a direct and acknowledged 
union of the church with the state for mutual 
dependence and support, or to the tacit acknowl- 
edgment by the church of the help of the state 
to enforce obedience to those things which are, or 
are supposed to be, of a peculiarly Christian origin. 

The founder of Christianity laid down no rules 
for the government of states. That question is 
not within the province of Christianity. Chris- 
tianity is a power which saves men from sin ; it 
relates to men in their individual relation to God. 
Christianity, salvation, is not offered to nations or 
states in the aggregate ; nor does Christianity seek 
to control the state through the church. A wrong 
conception of the relations which the church and 
the state sustain toward each other, led, in the 
fourth century, to a union of the church with the 



198 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

state, which degraded the state and debauched 
the church. 

True Christianity appeals to no power but that 
of love, to move men to obey the gospel, and warns 
the impenitent sinner of no punishment inflicted in 
this world and in this life by the civil laws. Said 
Jesus, "And if any man hear my words, and be- 
lieve not, I judge him not : for I came not to judge 
[condemn] the world, but to save the world. He 
that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath 
one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him in the last day." John 
12:47, 48- Condemnation for disobedience to 
Christ is not to be pronounced by men. The 
words which Christ spoke while here on earth, and 
which are recorded for the world, will do that on 
the last day. For men to attempt to forestall the 
judgments of God, and to inflict temporal punish- 
ments for sin, is to usurp the place of God. Very 
properly, then, the great apostasy in the church is 
foretold by Paul as usurping the place of God, 
sitting in his temple, and representing itself to be 
God. 2 Thess. 2:3,4. 

The deferring of the judgments of God for the 
punishment of sin until the last day, does not abate 
the right of the state to punish for acts of incivility; 
but a careful discrimination should be made be- 
tween those offenses which come within the cog- 
nizance of the state and those which do not. God 
does not need the state to champion his laws or to 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 1 99 

enforce penalties against sin. To state the case 
with exactness, the state has no right to enforce 
duties which grow out of man's relation to God. 
By that act man's liberty to serve God or not to 
serve him, would be taken away. A service to 
God constrained by fear of civil punishment, cannot 
be pleasing to God or beneficial to man. Such 
restraint may make hypocrites ; it cannot make 
Christians. The Christian church, in the fourth 
century, and branches of it since, have thought 
otherwise. The result has been that states have 
undertaken to enforce the doctrines of the church 
by the infliction of civil penalties. This was the 
cause of the numerous persecutions which have dis- 
graced the history of so many nations. When the 
church and the state each confine themselves to 
their work given severally to them by God, — the 
one to the preaching of the gospel and the salva- 
tion of souls, the other to the maintenance of order 
and civility, — such an anomaly as a temporal 
power of the church over kings and states, or their 
union, will not be known. The power of the popes 
thus to override kings and states brands that church 
as an apostate church. 

Besides the temporal power of the popes, of the 
nature previously described, they also possessed 
another kind of temporal power. This was the 
actual possession of certain lands in Italy known 
as the " States of the Church." Generally speak- 
ing, when the temporal power of the popes is re- 



200 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

ferred to, a kingly authority over this territory is 
meant, which caused the pope to be considered 
one of the sovereigns of Europe. 

The possession of lands by the papacy came 
through the recognition of its spiritual authority. 
The actual ownership by the bishops of Rome of 
large portions of land in and near Rome by gift 
from Constantine and from other persons devoted 
to the church, was the first step toward the tem- 
poral sovereignty of the popes. When the seat 
of empire was removed from Rome to Constan- 
tinople, in 330, the absence of the chief civil au- 
thority from Rome, greatly augmented the power 
of the bishop of that city, and the municipal affairs 
of the city of Rome and the surrounding country 
received a share of his attention. Upon the divi- 
sion of the empire, Milan became the capital of 
the Western Empire, and thus the civil authority 
of the bishop of Rome in the civil affairs of the 
ancient capital, was rather advanced than checked 
by the establishment of the Western Empire. 

The fall of the Western Empire, in 476, marked 
an important era in the growth of the temporal 
power of the papacy. From this time on until the 
papacy attained to full temporal power, the bishop 
of Rome was elected by the united votes of the 
clergy, the senate, and the people. His consecra- 
tion was, however, deferred until the election was 
sanctioned by the emperor of the East, whose sub- 
ject the pope was. 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 201 

This state of mixed authority continued until 726, 
when Pope Gregory declared his independence of 
the Eastern Empire. The popes had now begun 
to form alliances with the sovereigns of Western 
Europe, who had seized that portion of the Roman 
Empire, and whose subjects had quite generally 
accepted the religion of the Catholic Church. The 
influence which the pope possessed over all the 
people of the various petty kingdoms of the West, 
was recognized by the kings of those countries ; so 
any king who could secure the favor of the Roman 
pontiff, by that means armed the very subjects of 
his rival king against their rightful sovereign. The 
popes soon learned the value of their services and 
exacted pay a,ccordingly. 

An instance of this kind was the cause of the 
possession by the papacy, of the provinces known 
as the States of the Church. In the year 726 
Leo III became emperor of the East. This mon- 
arch had a great antipathy to the worship of 
images, which at that time had become nearl}' 
universal in the Catholic Church. After having for 
ten years stifled his natural indignation at such 
idolatry, he made an attempt to reform the church 
upon this point. A conclave of bishops and sena- 
tors, summoned by him, decreed that the images 
should be placed at such a height that the people 
could not see them. This action failing to prevent 
their worship, a second edict prohibited the use of 
images, and finally, by the emperor's orders, the 



202 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

images were broken to pieces throughout the East- 
ern Empire. Six succeeding emperors imitated 
Leo's conduct in this respect. His son Constantine 
convened a council in the year 754, at which were 
gathered three hundred and thirt3^-eight bishops, 
who, after a continuous session of six months, de- 
clared by a unanimous vote that the worship of 
images was a corruption of Christianity. 

In this controversy the bishops of Rome were 
the champions of image-worship, and, of course, 
bitter feelings arose between the East and the 
West. At this time the emperor of the East held 
civil jurisdiction over Rome, so that the popes of 
Rome were as really the subjects of the emperor as 
were the people of Constantinople. This, however, 
did not prevent the popes from conceiving the 
project of throwing off all allegiance to the em- 
peror of the East, and joinmg the fortune of the 
papacy with the rising nations of the West. The 
heresy (?) of the Eastern emperors in their war 
against idolatry, furnished the pretext for independ- 
ence from the civil jurisdiction of the emperors of 
the East, consequently the kings of the West were 
soon induced by substantial favors to confirm and 
sustain this papal claim. 

Between the years 730 and 732, Italy was vexed 
by the inroads of the Lombards. They penetrated 
even to Rome ; but as they were nominally Catho- 
lics, out of respect for the pontiff the king of the 
Lombards did not take possession of the city. Be- 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 203 

fore this, under cover of respect for the images, 
which were being attacked by the emperors of the 
East, they had entrenched themselves in the strong 
cit}/ of Ravenna. The papacy, which had recently 
declared itself free from the empire of the East, not 
being disposed to see another power take possession 
of Italy, made an appeal to Charles Martei, of 
France, mayor of the palace and commander of 
the French army, to dislodge the Lombards from 
Italy, Pope Stephen III went himself to France 
to solicit succor against the intruding Lombards, 
and returned in 754 with a French army. Three 
times were the Lombards defeated by the French, 
during a period of twenty years, and the papacy 
acknowledged with gratitude the assistance of 
Martei, his son Pepin, and grandson Charlemagne 
in the defense of Rome against these barbarians. 
At this time the throne of France was occupied 
by Childeric, a weak prince who, however, as the 
descendant of the great Clovis, was justly entitled 
to the respect and allegiance of his subjects. His 
fate, however, well illustrates how little the papacy 
respects constitutional rights when her own interests 
are involved. Pepin, the son of Charles Martei, 
had conceived the idea that the services of his 
father and himself to the state, and especially to 
the papacy, gave him a better right to the throne 
of France than that possessed by Childeric, and 
so he appealed to Pope Zacharias to bestow the 
crown upon him, and seat him upon the throne of 



204 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

France. This the pope consented to do. The 
people of France were reheved from allegiance to 
their rightful sovereign, and Pepin took the throne 
of France by the authority of the pope of Rome. 
The following is a concise and accurate statement 
of how it was done. "In 722 Pepin the Short, 
mayor of the palace to Childeric III, confined the 
king in a monastery, and seated himself on the 
throne, by the aid of the pope. Pepin was a man 
of enormous energy, of great courage, and with a 
subtle understanding of time and circumstances. 
He felt that the dire emergencies of the country 
demanded a vigorous ruler, and he understood that 
in the eyes of the people the clergy could legitima- 
tize even a revolution. He consequently induced 
Pope Zacharias to become a member of the con- 
spiracy, and Boniface (a later pope) crowned and 
consecrated him."^ 

Thus did treason gain the favor of the papacy, 
and the Merovingian line of kings, which had ruled 
France for over a century, gave way to the Carlo- 
vingian line. For such an act there can be no 
justification. The selfish interests of the pope 
and the French conspirators were united to over- 
throw a monarchy, a striking illustration of the in- 
stability of kings when the desires of the papacy 
for their removal shall be supplemented with suffi- 
cient power to effect their overthrow. The help 
thus afforded by the papacy to Pepin, and doubtless 
more which was promised, demanded a suitable 

1 Johnson's Encyclopedia, Vol. v, p. 364. 




CHARLEMAGNE. 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 205 

return. He who had received a great kingdom 
through the influence of the papacy, could easily 
afford to bestow upon the popes the provinces in 
Italy wrested from the Lombards ; hence that por- 
tion of Italy which has so long been known as the 
States of the Church was bestowed by Charle- 
magne, the son of Pepin, upon the papacy. These 
provinces embraced an area of 15,289 square miles 
with a population at that time of 3, 124,668. 

These rich provinces thus taken possession of by 
the papacy, were really a portion of the territory of 
the empire of the East. The fact that the Lom- 
bards had held them two years did not give the 
Lombards a right to them, nor did the expulsion of 
the Lombards by the French give them the right 
to bestow those lands upon the papacy. Thus the 
foundation of the tempo.ral power of the papacy, in 
the most common meaning of that term, was gained 
by the union of the ecclesiastical power of the 
popes with the treason of a subject, uniting in an 
unexampled national fraud. A subject of a king is 
strengthened in treason and rebellion against his 
sovereign by the papacy, which receives in return 
for services rendered in this nefarious scheme, ter- 
ritory which never belonged to the one who pre- 
tended to give it ! Does the papacy now complain 
that her patrimony has been taken from her by the 
king of Italy, it may be sufficient to remark that 
what is won by fraud and duplicity is often lost by 
violence. Such was the origin of the temporal 
15 



206 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

authority of the papacy, which began in the year 
753. Of this gift to the papacy, a well-known 
historian has said : ' ' The splendid donation was 
given in supreme and absolute dominion, and the 
world beheld for the first time a Christian bishop 
invested with the prerogatives of a temporal prince, 
— the choice of magistrates, the exercise of jus- 
tice, the imposition of taxes, and the wealth of the 
palace of Ravenna."^ 

Later, Charlemagne is said to have confirmed 
and enlarged the original grant of Pepin ; but 
strange as it may seem, no copy of any grant from 
either of these kings has ever been seen, though its 
existence has often been challenged, even by Cath- 
olics. Such an ancient document may repose in 
the Vatican ; but if so, it is likely to contain ex- 
pressions which the pope and Catholics would not 
enjoy seeing published in the newspapers in the 
latter part of the nineteenth century. 

How the papacy was able to gain the support of 
Charlemagne is told by Gibbon in the following 
interesting manner : — 

** Fraud is the resource of weakness and cunning ; 
and the strong, though ignorant barbarian [Charle- 
magne] was often entangled in the net of sacerdotal 
policy. The Vatican and the Lateran [papal pal- 
aces] were an arsenal and manufacture, which, 
according to the occasion, have produced or con- 
cealed a various collection of false or genuine, ol 

1" Decline aud Fall of the Roman Empire," Vol. v, p. 32, 



THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. 20/ 

corrupt or suspicious acts, as they tended to pro- 
mote the interest of the Roman Church. Before 
the end of the eighth century, some apostohcal 
scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the 
decretals and the donation of Constantine — the 
two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal 
power of the popes. This memorable donation 
was introduced to the world by [pope] Adrian the 
First, who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the 
liberality, and revive the memory of the great Con- 
stantine. According to the legend, the first of the 
Christian emperors [Constantine] was healed of the 
leprosy, and purified in the waters of baptism, by 
St. Silvester, the Roman bishop ; and never was 
physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal 
proselyte withdrew from the seat and patrimony of 
St. Peter, and declared his resolution of foundmg 
a new capital in the East ; and restored to the 
popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of the 
West. This fiction was productive of the most 
beneficial results [to the papacy]. The Greek 
princes were convicted of the guilt of usurpation, 
and the revolt of Gregory was the claim of his 
lawful inheritance. . . . The sovereign of Rome 
no longer depended on the choice of a fickle people ; 
and the successors of St. Peter and Constantine 
were invested with the purple and prerogatives of 
the Caesars. So deep was the ignorance and cre- 
dulity of the times, that the most absurd of fables 
was received with equal reverence, in Greece and 



208 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

in France, and is still enrolled among the decrees 
of the canon law. The emperors and the Romans 
were incapable of discovering a forgery that sub- 
verted their rights and freedom."^ 

The possession of these rich provinces, which 
made the pope a temporal prince, added to the 
spiritual power wielded by him, and made him 
the arbiter of the nations of Europe. Ambassadors 
were now sent from Rome to the different nations, 
which also sent ambassadors to Rome. Thus the 
popes became kings in their own country, and at 
the same time exercised a spiritual authority over 
the subjects of all the Catholic countries, which 
could not but lead, as it often did, to conflicts of 
authority, dissensions, troubles, and wars. The 
wars between the* emperors and the popes are 
known in history as the wars of the Guelfs and 
the Ghibbellines, the former supporting the popes 
and the latter the emperors. These wars lasted 
from 1 167—1447, and seventy-eight battles were 
fought. Indeed, it has been said, "To give a full 
account of the party quarrels of Guelf and Ghib- 
bellin would be to write the history of medieval 
Italy. "^ 

The popes, however, held all that they had gained, 
and their temporal authority over the States of the 
Church continued with no serious interruption until 
the time of the French Revolution. 

^ "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Vol. v, pp. 33-35. 
^Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. xi, art. Guelfs and Ghibbellines, 




Charlemagne Heading a Convocation of His People. 



CHAPTER XVIL 



THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND ITS EFFECT UPON 

THE PAPACY. 

THE French revolution of 1 789-1 793, may 
be briefly described as being an effort of the 
French people to throw off the rule of king, nobles, 
and priests, and to establish a government of the 
people. The luxurious and useless lives of the ru- 
ling class, and the oppressive taxation which the 
common people were compelled to bear, alienated 
the latter from the government ; and the idleness, 
viciousness, and general profligacy of the priests, 
had the effect to make them contemptible in the 
eyes of those who had previously looked to them 
for spiritual direction. Such conditions were very 
favorable for the spread of skepticism in regard to 
the truthfulness of the Christian religion ; and as a 
result, in France, infidelity to a large degree under- 
mined faith in the Deity ; and to a greater measure, 
belief in the sacred character of a church which 
misrepresented the teachings of Christ. The suc- 
cessful American Revolution setting the example to 
France, the French Revolution followed, with such 
excesses of violence as the greater complaints of the 

[209] 



2IO THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

people, the position of France in Europe, her great 
power and resources, and the mihtary spirit and in- 
flammatory nature of the French people, led them 
to commit. 

As the papacy labored to sustain the king of 
France and the nobles against the people, it is not 
strange that there should have arisen in France 
a strong feeling of resentment against it, which 
affected even many sincere Catholics. This led 
directly to one of the most remarkable episodes in 
the history of the papacy, and to events which for 
a time seemed to indicate that the whole fabric of 
error and superstition was about to fall. When 
the members of the royal family of France were 
destroyed or driven from the country, and the kings 
of Europe, who sought to replace the monarchy, 
had been defeated and forced to retire from the 
borders of France, the French began to extend 
their conquests into other countries. 

Italy seemed especially to invite their entrance. 
In no other country of Europe, aside from France, 
did the principles of liberty find a more ready re- 
ception. Perhaps this was owing to the peculiar 
position in which the people of Italy were placed. 
There was no general government ; but it was 
divided into many petty sovereignties, ruled by 
dukes, kings, and the pope. The laws were op- 
pressive, and the people were practically held in a 
state of slavery by being kept in profound igno- 
rance. Neither dukes, kings, nor the church cared 




SCENE TN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 



THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 2 I I 

for the enlightenment of the people. While other 
countries were making great advances in knowledge, 
and education was becoming more generally dif- 
fused, the stupor of an intellectual death brooded 
over the land of the Caesars. A modern writer, 
describing the condition of Italy as it was at the 
time of the French Revolution, says : ' ' The whole 
country indeed was so degraded and debased, so 
sunk in ignorance and superstition, so weakened by 
artificial divisions, so distracted by local jealousies, 
that the sentiment of nationality could hardly be 
said to exist. "^ Among these petty sovereignties, 
and partaking of their general character, lay the 
territory known as the States of the Church, the 
condition of which was in no degree superior to that 
of the other portions of Italy. 

The close relation of Austria to Italy, and its 
ardent championship of the power of the pope, 
angered the people of France against that country. 
Austria had also endeavored to stifle the breath 
of liberty in France, and she therefore was particu- 
larly obnoxious to the French people. For these 
reasons it was determined by the latter country to 
punish her severely for the part she had taken. As 
several of the dukedoms of Italy were under the 
Austrian government, an army of French troops 
commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte, was sent into 
that country. A brief but skilful campaign entirely 
destroyed the Austrian power in Italy, and left 

1 " Victor Emmanuel," by Edward Dicey, M, A., p. ii. 



212 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

France the master of the destinies of Italy. The 
efforts of the papacy against the repubhc of France 
were not forgotten ; and the Directory, which was 
the supreme power in France at that time, deter- 
mined to punish it also for intermeddling with the 
affairs of France. After the defeat of the Austrian 
armies, the following demands were presented to 
Pope Pius VI, through Napoleon, by order of the 
Directory: A large contribution of money; the ports 
of Ancona and Cevita Vecchia to be ceded to 
France; the independence of some of the provinces, 
the cession of others to the Milanese, who favored 
the French cause; the establishment of a secular 
government for the people of Rome; and last, but 
not least, the demand was made that the pope 
should annul the decrees issued by himself against 
France since the beginning of the revolution, and 
that he should sanction the seizure by the French 
government, of the Catholic-Church lands in France. 

The pope, refusing these terms, prepared for 
war. He could not really have believed himself 
able to resist the victorious Army of Italy under 
its redoubtable general, but he evidently expected 
to gain the sympathy of Europe by resistance. 

Among the means used by the pope to arouse 
the enthusiasm of his people was a large number 
of pretended miracles. It was hoped by this means 
to excite the ignorant and superstitious people to 
resist the French invasion. One instance, recorded 
by a well-known historian, will show the nature 



THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 213 

of these pretended prodigies. ' ' A curious piece 
of priestcraft had been played off in this town 
[Ancona], to encourage the people to resistance. 
A miraculous image was seen to shed tears, and 
the French artists could not discover the mode in 
which the trick was managed until the image was 
brought to headquarters, when a glass shrine, by 
which the illusion was managed, was removed. 
The madonna was sent back to the church which 
owned her, but apparently had become reconciled 
to the foreign visitors, and dried her tears in con- 
sequence of her interview with Bonaparte. " ^ 

Not much real resistance was made to the prog- 
ress of the French troops, which were under the 
immediate command of Victor, though Napoleon 
himself directed the campaign. The pope in im- 
passioned language declared that a new Alaric was 
invading Rome, and in the names of St. Peter, St. 
Paul, and the Blessed Virgin called upon his sub- 
jects to defend him and the patrimony of St. Peter 
from the impious invader. It was all in vain, how- 
ever, and the campaign was soon ended by the 
utter defeat of the papal army, which showed little 
disposition to fight. At one time three thousand 
papal troops, occupying a strong position, sur- 
rendered without firing a shot. The treaty of 
Tolentino which followed (Feb. 19, 1797), gave to 
France nearly all she had claimed. Napoleon was 
too politic a leader to press the pope upon such 

1 Scott's "Napoleon," Vol. i, p. 260. 



214 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

things as would compromise his position as the rec- 
ognized head of the Roman CathoHc Church. 

A further humihation was destined to fall upon 
the papacy. Napoleon was recalled from Italy to 
take command of an army which the Directory at 
that time purposed to send to England, which was 
afterward sent to Egypt. In the following year, 
while Napoleon was in Egypt, there was a renewed 
spirit of republicanism in many of the cities of 
Italy, which extended to Rome. The principles 
of the revolution having taken root in that city of 
priests and monks, those who favored liberty and 
those who opposed it came frequently into collision. 
Many people declared that ' ' it was high time that 
the temporal rule of the Roman states should be 
transferred from the hands of the ignorant, incapa- 
ble monks, unacquainted with secular affairs, to 
those of real citizens, experienced in the business 
of life and possessing a knowledge of the world." ^ 

At length the revolution burst out in Rome, and 
on Dec. 28, 1797, there was a movement in that 
city in favor of a republic. Those who gathered 
together for this purpose were attacked and dis- 
persed by the papal troops. While the two factions 
were fighting in the city, Joseph Bonaparte, brother 
of Napoleon, and French ambassador to Rome, 
endeavored to separate the combatants ; but the 
papal soldiers, not regarding his high office and 
most exemplary character, fired upon him, killing 

1 Thiers's "French Revolution," Vol. iv, p. 245. 




£,t\o//JA /. 



:^^;^ ^:p^^^^W^ 



GENERAL BERTHIER. 



THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 215 

General Duphot by his side, and Joseph himself 
narrowly escaped death. He at once demanded 
his passports, and left for Tuscany. This event 
caused a tremendous sensation in France and also 
in the Army of Italy, which at this time was 
commanded by General Berthier. The Directory 
commanded Berthier to make an immediate march 
on Rome. The taking of Rome at that time is thus 
described by M. Thiers, the French historian. 

"Great was the joy of all the republicans and 
partisans of the new French philosophy. On the 
22d of Pluviose (Feb. lo, 1798), Berthier came in 
sight of the ancient capital of the world, which the 
republican armies had not yet visited. Our soldiers 
paused for a moment to survey the old and mag- 
nificent city. The Spanish minister, d'Azara, the 
usual mediator of the Italian powers with France, 
hastened to the headquarters to negotiate a conven- 
tion. The Castle of St. Angelo was delivered up to 
the French on the natural condition between civilized 
nations, to respect religion, the public establish- 
ments, persons, and property. The pope was left 
in the Vatican, and Berthier, introduced at the 
Porta di Populo, was conducted to the Capitol, like 
the Roman generals of old in their triumphs. The 
democrats, at the summit of their wishes, assem- 
bled in the Campo Vaccino, in sight of the remains 
of the ancient Forum, and, surrounded by a sense- 
less rabble, ready to applaud all new events, pro- 
claimed the Roman republic. A notary drew up 

16 



2l6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

an act by which the populace, calhng itself the 
Roman people, declared that it resumed its sover^ 
eignty and constituted itself a republic. The pope 
had been left alone in the Vatican. Messengers 
were sent to demand the abdication of his tem- 
poral sovereignty, for there was no intention of 
meddling with his spiritual authority. He replied 
with dignity that he could not divest himself of a 
property which was not his, but which had devolved 
on him from the apostles, and was only a deposit 
in his hands. This logic had little effect upon our 
republican generals. The pope, treated with the 
respect due his age, was removed in the night from 
the Vatican, and conveyed into Tuscany, where he 
received asylum in a convent. The Roman people 
seemed to feel little regret for this sovereign who had 
nevertheless reigned more than twenty years. "^ 
Later he was sent to Valence, France, where he 
died in exile. For two years there was no pope. 
That the pope should seriously claim that the tem- 
poral power was something that "had devolved 
upon him from the apostles," when they never had 
any temporal power to bestow, and when the tem- 
poral power of the papacy was not obtained before 
the middle of the eighth century, and then acquired 
in the manner described in a previous chapter, is a 
striking illustration of the fact that one may de- 
ceive himself into believing things which have not 
the slightest foundation in fact. 

iThiers's " French Revolution," Vol. iv, p. 246. 



CHAPTER XVIIL 



NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 

WHILE Bonaparte was in Egypt, many reverses 
befell the French arms. Accounts of these 
disasters were communicated to him ; and dissat- 
isfied with the Egyptian campaign, and seeing a 
greater opportunity for his ambition in France, he 
returned to that country, where, by a skilful use of 
his friends, he abolished the Directory, and estab- 
lished the consular government, with himself as 
First Consul. Another campaign in Italy soon 
following, the decisive battle of Marengo placed 
that country again in the hands of France, or rather 
of Napoleon, who now represented that nation. 

Policy inclined Napoleon at this time to relieve 
the papacy from the humiliation suffered by the 
loss of the temporal power. The people of France 
were getting over their infidelity craze; and the 
pope being the recognized head of the Catholic 
Church, was regarded as of sufficient importance to 
be conciliated, especially if by so doing he might 
be able better to advance the interests of Bona- 
parte. Napoleon, when in Egypt, had professed a 
reverence for Mohammed, in order to conciliate thq 

[217] 



2l8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Arabs; now he accomplished a similar purpose by 
assuming a reverence for the Holy See. Contrary 
to the expectations of many, he did not restore the 
Roman republic, which had been both set up and 
destroyed in his absence. On the contrary, he 
gave his sanction to the papal possession, and the 
papacy w-as restored to its position as a temporal 
power. By this restoration of the papacy, Napo- 
leon earned the gratitude of the reigning pope, 
and bound him, as it were, to his triumphant 
chariot wheels. 

A new concordat was soon negotiated with the 
pope by Joseph Bonaparte. By the terms of this 
concordat, ratified Sept. i8, 1801, the papacy gave 
up many things which it had for centuries in- 
sisted upon as being rights that could not be alien- 
ated. The bishops of the Catholic Church in 
France were to be appointed by the French govern- 
ment, and even the seizure of the lands of the 
Catholic Church in France by the Directory, was 
sanctioned, or at least admitted, by the pope. It 
is this concordat to which reference is made by a 
contemporary historian as ''the celebrated com- 
pact, by which Pius VII surrendered to a soldier 
whose name was, five or six years before, unheard 
of in Europe, those high claims to supremacy in 
spiritual affairs, which his predecessors had main- 
tained for so many ages against the potentates of 
Europe. A Puritan might have said of the power 



NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 219 

seated on the seven hills, Babylon is fallen, it is 
fallen, that great city. "^ 

One more feature of Napoleon's dealings with 
the papacy, deserves mention. Napoleon, First 
Consul, meditated a change in his title to that of 
Emperor Napoleon of France. A vote of the 
French Senate granted this desire, but he knew 
that the sanction of religion added to the voice of 
the people would give to his newly erected throne 
an additional strength and security. Since Napo- 
leon had no royal ancestors, and himself dated his 
patent of nobility from the battle of Monte Notte, 
his first victory; and as his ambition, suggested by 
the new term of emperor, aspired to an extension 
of his power beyond the borders of France, he an- 
nounced himself as the successor of Charlemagne; 
and since Charlemagne was crowned by a pope, so 
would he be. However, he did not, like Charle- 
magne, go to Rome. He never went to Rome 
either literally or figuratively. He was the master, 
not the servant, of the papacy. Hence Pius VH, 
who had been despoiled of so much by Napoleon, 
and had also received so much in the restoration of 
the temporal power and the States of the Church, 
received a request from Napoleon, couched in terms 
easily understood to be equivalent to a command, 
to come to Paris, to bless the ancient crown of the 
former kings of France, preparatory to its gracing 
the brow of a Corsican soldier of fortune. The 

1 Scott's "Napoleon," Vol. i, p. 357. 



220 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

pope obeyed his new master with commendable 
promptness. The ceremony took place in the 
cathedral of Notre Dame, in Paris. Napoleon 
took the oath, as prompted to him by the pope, 
with his hand resting on the Scriptures, but he did 
not allow the pontiff to place the emblem of royalty 
on his head. Conscious of having gained the crown 
by his own efforts, and not by the help of the 
church, Napoleon took the crown from the altar 
and placed it upon his own head. All of his sub- 
sequent conduct toward the papacy was of the 
nature of a constant reminder that he was the mas- 
ter and the pope his servant, — very useful in his 
way, but still his servant. This may be seen in his 
treatment of Pius VII, after his own coronation as 
emperor of France. Although that pontiff had 
surrendered to Napoleon many things which were 
considered to be ancient rights, and had in an ad- 
dress to the College of Cardinals spoken of Napo- 
leon in the highest terms, Napoleon exacted still 
more of him. 

At that time the States of the Church was the 
only remaining portion of the Italian peninsula 
which had not become a part, either directly or in- 
directly, of the empire of France. Napoleon, dis- 
satisfied with this independence of the See of Rome, 
since it gave to England certain advantages of 
trade, now urged the pope to shut his ports to 
English commerce, and join him in a war against 
Austria. The pope consented to the first proposi- 




NAPOLEON. 



NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 22 1 

tion, but to the last he turned a deaf ear. There- 
upon Napoleon promptly threw a body of troops 
into the towns of Civita Vecchia and Ancona. The 
pope still refusing to yield, Feb. 2, 1809, General 
Miollis occupied the city of Rome. The papal army 
was disbanded, and the papal troops were told that 
they would be no longer under the command of a 
priest ! Then the pope was pressed from several 
sides to cede the States of the Church to France ; 
to join Napoleon against the other powers, etc. 
Finding the pope determined not to yield, on May 
17, 1809, Napoleon issued a decree of which the 
following were the principal points: " (i) That 
his august predecessor (Charlemagne) had granted 
Rome and certain other territories in fief to the 
bishops of that city, but without parting with the 
sovereignty thereof ; (2) that the union of the re- 
ligious and civil authority had proved the source of 
constant discord, of which many of the pontiffs had 
availed themselves to extend their secular domin- 
ion, under pretext of maintaining their spiritual 
authority; (3) that the temporal pretensions of the 
pope were irreconcilable with the tranquillity and 
well being of the nations whom Napoleon governed ; 
and all proposals which he had made on the subject' 
had been rejected. Therefore it was declared by 
the decree that the estates of the church were re- 
united to the French Empire. A proclamation of 
the Consultinn issued on the lOth of June, in con- 
sequence of the imperial rescript, declared that the 



2 22 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

temporal dominion of Rome had passed to Napo- 
leon, but she would still continue to be the resi- 
dence of the visible head of the Catholic Church."^ 

It would seem that any one who had read history 
must admit the truthfulness of Napoleon's state- 
ment concerning the evils resulting from the union 
of the religious and the civil power in the papacy; 
and also that the spiritual power was often extended 
far beyond its rightful limits and into the realm of 
civil affairs, though he may doubt the propriety of 
Napoleon's seizure of the States of the Church, 
which he had but a short time before restored to 
the papacy, and may question the pretext which 
led to the seizure. 

The pope refusing to comply with the terms of 
this decree, now had recourse to those spiritual 
weapons which are believed by his church to be 
reposed in him. He issued a decree declaring 
Napoleon and all those who favored him, excommu- 
nicated. This greatly incensed Napoleon; and on 
the night following July 6, the palace of the pope 
was entered by General Rodet, who demanded of 
the pontiff that he immediately renounce his tem- 
poral estates in favor of the French emperor. Still 
refusing, the pope was taken from his palace in the 
night, placed in a carriage, and surrounded by a 
guard of French soldiers, taken to Grenoble, and 
then to Savona. In June, 1812, he was taken to 
Fontainebleau, in France, where a new concordat 

1 Scott's "Napoleon," Vol. ii, p. 64. 



NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 22 3 

was about to be signed by him, when the successes 
of the alhes in their war with Napoleon in Ger- 
many caused him to refuse to treat outside of 
Rome. Accordingly he was sent back to that city, 
arriving there May 24, 1 8 14. 

Such was Napoleon's conduct toward the papacy. 
Although at times, in petulant fits, he deprecated 
the concordat/ he always believed that it was a 
necessary measure for the security of his throne. 
At St. Helena he said: "I never regretted the 
concordat. I must have had either that or some- 
thing equivalent. Had the pope never before ex- 
isted, he should have been made for the occasion."^ 
No doubt Napoleon, at the height of his power, felt 
himself fully competent to make a pope, if it should 
be necessary for the promotion of his schemes of 
ambition. 

A few points canvassed in this chapter are worthy 
of further notice. The temporal power, which was 
bestowed upon the papacy by France through Pepin, 
in 753, was, in 1798, taken away by the same na- 
tion, under the Directory, and again by Napoleon. 
This seems to be a striking fulfilment of Rev. 
13 : 10. '* He that leadeth into captivity shall go 
into captivity : he that killeth with the sword must 
be killed with the sword." The papacy had been 
invested with civil power, — the sword had been 

^ Treaties between the papacy and civil powers were called " con- 
cordats." 

2 Scott's " Napoleon " Vol. i, p. 358. 



224 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

placed in its hand ; it had led kings into captivity, 
and by the sword that power was taken away, and 
the papacy itself was led captive. Again, the great 
exactions made upon the papacy by Napoleon at 
the treaty of Tolentino, and the subsequent de- 
struction of the civil power of the papacy, reaching 
down to the events of 1870, are a striking fulfil- 
ment of the prediction in Dan. 7:26: "But the 
judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his 
dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the 
end." 

Another important point is the remarkable fact 
that the length of time which the papacy covered, 
from the greatest official declaration of its authority 
by the Roman civil power to its temporary sus- 
pension, is in harmony with a Scriptural prediction. 
In several places in the prophecy of Daniel and 
in the Revelation, a period of time, referred to as 
**a time, times, and the dividing of time" (Dan. 
7:25); "a time, and times, and half a time" 
(Rev. 12 : 14) ; and "forty and two months" (Rev. 
13:5), has generally been considered by Protes- 
tants as referring to the time of the supremacy of 
the papacy. Special power was conveyed to the 
papacy by the decree of Justinian, emperor of the 
East, in 538, as previously referred to in this book. 
Of this decree Gavazzi said : " The celebrated let- 
ter of Justinian to the pope in the year 533 (which 
went into effect 538), not only recognized all pre- 
vious privileges, but enlarged them, and entitled 



NAPOLEON AND THE PAPACY. 22 5 

the pope and his church to many immunities and 
rights, which afterward gave origin to the preten- 
sions displayed in the canon law. "^ Allowing each 
day to stand for one year, according to the rule 
laid down in Num. 14 : 34 and Eze. 4 : 6, — which 
rule has been demonstrated to be correct by the 
fulfilment of the prophecy of the first advent of 
Christ at the end of the sixty-nine weeks (Dan. 
9:25), — and commencing this period of twelve 
hundred and sixty 3^ears in 538, it would expire in 
1798, the very year in which Pope Pius VI was 
made a prisoner by the French under Berthier, 
and the temporal power of the papacy was for 
a time abolished. A fact so remarkable as the 
above, must be considered as something more than 
a curious coincidence. 

One remark further in regard to these extraordi- 
nary events may be permitted. When the papacy 
connived at the overthrow of Childeric, and the 
substitution of Pepin as king of France, with the 
papal sanction and blessing upon him and the new 
dynasty, there was placed by the pope a solemn 
interdict upon the people of France, should they 
ever venture to assert their right to choose for 
themselves another sovereign without the consent 
of the Papal See. A thousand years later, when 
the people of France deposed the reigning dynasty, 
and a soldier of fortune elevated himself to the 
position of emperor of France, with the consent 
of the French people, against the determined op- 

^Gavazzi's Lectures, p. 66. 



226 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

position of the papacy, that very papacy which had 
forbidden any other than the Carlovingian hne to 
rule France, under the fear of Napoleon, repre- 
senting the uprising people, gave its sanction and 
blessing to the new dynasty. It had exceeded the 
legitimate authority and power of the church in 
making kings, and had followed its own wishes in 
elevating a king who gave the papacy his support ; 
and now it was compelled to crown an emperor not 
of its choice, — an emperor who- robbed it of its 
greatest treasures and made it but a means for his 
own aggrandizement. 



CHAPTER XIX. 



THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 

AFTER the exile of Napoleon to Elba, there was 
a decided return in Europe to the conditions 
which prevailed before the revolution. The repub- 
lics established had so often abused their power 
that the very name was in disrepute. The ease 
with which a military despotism reared itself upon 
the ruins of the republic in France, discouraged 
real lovers of liberty, and made the adherents of 
the old regime of kings and priests more secure in 
their hope that everything would soon resume its 
former course. The sovereigns of Europe did not 
seem to realize that, unsubstantial as the revolu- 
tion had been, the condition of Europe and the 
relations between the kings and the people had 
been entirely changed by it, and that it would not 
be possible again for the people to be loyal to 
existing governments irrespective of the question 
whether they were deserving of respect or not. 

The return of Napoleon from Elba, and the tre- 
mendous energy displayed by him, were an evidence 
to Europe that the revolutionary principle was far 
from being extinct. This led, after the battle of 
Waterloo, to the most oppressive measures, on ac- 

[227 ] 



228 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

count of which everything apparently drifted back 
into the old channels; the kings reigned by divine 
right, and not by the choice of the people, to 
whom they thought they owed no responsibility; 
the priests thundered their anathemas and threat- 
ened purgatory and hell, and the people submitted 
both body and soul to those who ruled them in 
civil and spiritual things. 

Austria, always a reactionary and despotic power, 
regained in Italy all that she had lost between the 
memorable years i 'j^j and 1 8 1 5 ; but her rule was so 
domineering and cruel that the people of the differ- 
ent states of Italy felt that the rule of France, com- 
pared with this autocratic rule, had been as a May 
breeze to a March storm. Of the time succeeding 
Waterloo, a historian says : "A few years of auto- 
cratic rule, under which church and state were 
administered by the same combination of political 
and ecclesiastical influences, sufficed to create in 
Italy a reaction of popular sentiment which was 
sure to make itself felt at the first opportunity."^ 

We have been particular to note this civil and 
spiritual tyranny in Italy, and the reaction from it, 
for two reasons : First, to connect the popular de- 
mand for liberty in 1848 in Italy with the French 
Revolution ; and, secondly, because the reaction 
from the overwrought and united kingly and eccle- 
siastical rule which succeeded that revolution, led 
directly to that series of revolutions by which Italy 

\ " Victor Emmanuel," by Edward Dicey, p. 29. 



THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 2 29 

became a united nation, and the temporal power of 
the papacy was taken away. 

The causes which led to the loss of the papacy's 
temporal power were of a political rather than of a 
religious character, and this loss of power is but one 
event in the remarkable series of events by which 
Italian unity was accomplished. This unity could 
not be accomplished without the absorption of 
the States of the Church and the city of Rome ; 
and since Rome is the seat of that power which 
claims the headship of the church, the unification 
of Italy involved a religious question ; namely, the 
right of the papacy to the States of the Church, and 
the office of the pope as a temporal sovereign. 

A strong aversion to foreign rule was the first 
step toward Italian unity. As might be expected, 
this feeling grew in various directions, and led to 
divergent ideas and plans. Devout Catholics wished 
to see the pope the sole ruler of Italy; the petty 
sovereigns hoped to be freed from Austrian domina- 
tion, and desired an extension of their territory and 
power ; and the republicans desired to free the 
whole peninsula from kings and priests, and to 
erect a genuine republic. All these contending in- 
terests operated, sometimes independently of each 
other, and again together, for Italian unity ; and 
at times it seemed as though each was about to 
succeed. 

Those favoring Italian unity under the papacy, 
were represented by the Abbe Gioberti, author of a 

17 



230 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

book upon the primacy of the papacy, which about 
1843 made a strong impression upon the Itahan 
people. Of the repubhcans the name of Mazzini 
stands at the head, and with him may be mentioned 
the great agitator and partisan leader. Garibaldi. 
Of the royal families who aspired to rule a united 
Italy, Charles Albert, king of Sardinia and duke of 
Savoy, and his son, Victor Emmanuel, under whose 
reign Italian unity was at last achieved, are worthy 
of especial mention. Last, but not least, of the 
names of those who assisted to make a great nation 
out of a number of disjointed and petty states, 
stands the name of the master-spirit. Count Cavour, 
premier of Sardinia and of Italy, chief adviser of 
Victor Emmanuel, and one of the greatest states- 
men Europe has ever produced. 

Under the crushing weight of civil maladminis- 
tration and ecclesiastical despotism, the people of 
Italy, stirred to action by the glowing eloquence of 
Mazzini and other lovers of liberty who were his 
coadjutors, were about to rise in a general insurrec- 
tion, when Pope Gregory XVI died and was suc- 
ceeded by Pius IX. The revolt against the papacy 
was instantly checked ; for the new pope proclaimed 
himself a liberal, and championed the rights of the 
people. This had the effect greatly to strengthen 
the popular cause, since many devout Catholics who 
were in doubt as to the principles of liberty, seeing 
the position taken by the pope, were led to accept 
th§s^ viwi^ Those who looked for the papacy tq 




VICTOR EMMANUEL. 



THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 23 I 

become the actual ruling power of Italy were now 
at the height of happiness ; they expected that their 
dreams of papal power and glory were soon to be 
realized. Several of the petty princes of Italy 
granted a constitution to their people, and even the 
pope did the same. The discontent throughout 
Europe, however, was so deep-seated and wide- 
spread that these concessions made to the people 
were but the signal for a declaration of the people's 
rights which affected nearly all Europe. Then 
came the revolution of 1848, which swept over 
Europe like a hurricane. France, renewing her 
profession of republican principles, shook off the 
rule of Louis Philippe, and established a govern- 
ment of the people. Revolution prevailed in many 
parts of Europe, on account of which, constitutional 
governments were granted to the people in many 
kingdoms. The Hungarians rose in rebellion against 
Austria ; Prussia and Bavaria were affected by the 
revolutionary spirit ; and for a time it looked as 
though all the kingdoms of Europe were crumbling 
to the dust. 

In Italy a general feeling of hostility was aroused 
against Austria, and with the promised support of 
the pope, Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, and 
duke of Savoy, declared war against her. At first 
he was successful, but he soon was defeated, and 
the city of Milan was taken by the Austrians. 
This victory of the Austrians had the very surpris- 
ing effect to change the pope from a liberal and 



232 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

friend of the people, to the very opposite, and he 
now declared against the popular cause. Because 
of this there was great hostility in Rome against 
the pope ; and his life being in danger from his late 
loyal subjects, he fled from Rome in disguise to 
Gaeta, in Sicily. Here under the protection of 
King Ferdinand, whom he had shortly before de- 
rided, he placed himself entirely under the control 
of the autocratic and reactionary powers. His ac- 
ceptance of liberal principles had been the wonder 
of the world ; his sudden and total abjuration of 
these principles added to the wonder. 

Sardinia, deserted by the pope, and now de- 
feated, was obliged to conclude a treaty with 
Austria, on account of which, Charles Albert, 
heart-broken by his ill fortune, resigned his king- 
dom in favor of his son Victor Emmanuel. The 
son, receiving his new investiture of responsibility 
with a defeated army and crushed hopes, for he had 
entered the conflict with even greater zeal and 
hope than his father, did not despair of ultimate 
success ; and it became the one purpose of his life 
to secure for Italy, unity and independence. 

The Roman people, disgusted and angered at 
the conduct of the pope in leaving his self-chosen 
position of defender of the people to join the ranks 
of their oppressors, declared against him, and he 
was accordingly deposed from the temporal power 
by the very body to which a short time before he 
had committed the legislative branch of the gov- 




LOUIS NAPOLEON. 



THE ITALIAN REVOLUTION. 233 

ernment. A republic was declared at Rome, and 
an appeal was made by the republicans to the peo- 
ple of Italy generally, to send delegates to Rome to 
unite Italy in one republic. 

This, however, was impossible. The revolu- 
tionary movement had spent its strength in Eu- 
rope. Austria, with the help of Russia, gained the 
ascendency over its malcontents ; the Hungarians 
were crushed with an iron hand, and Kossuth, the 
great liberator, was compelled to ta^e refuge in 
Turkey, never again to visit his native land. Louis 
Napoleon Bonaparte had become president of 
France, and was planning for the coup d' etat, and 
everything seemed to be drifting away from liberty 
toward despotism again. The pope gathered his 
retainers around him at Gaeta, and after threaten- 
ing his late subjects with excommunication, began 
to negotiate with Austria and France for his res- 
toration to Rome. Soon the Austrians threatened 
"Rome upon the north, the Neapolitans upon the 
west, and a French army under General Oudinot 
was despatched by sea against the city. The Ital- 
ian patriots, Garibaldi and Mazzini, after holding 
the French army at bay for three months, finally 
evacuated the city ; and the pope, head of the 
Catholic Church and claiming to be the vicegerent 
of Christ on earth, returned to Rome, and once 
more ruled an unwilling people, supported by the 
bayonets of a foreign army. This occupation of 
Rome by a French army occurred in April, 1850, 



234 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Meanwhile the young king of Sardinia, Victor 
Emmanuel, entered upon a regular system of re- 
form which caused the eyes of all the people of 
Italy to turn instinctively toward him as the hope 
of a united Italy. Gioberti, who had been the 
champion of the papacy, as the head of Italy, went 
over to the idea that all must rally around Victor 
Emmanuel. From that time the ultra republicans, 
like Garibaldi and Mazzini, kept the whole penin- 
sula aflame, while the young king and Count 
Cavour carefully reaped the results of their sowing. 



CHAPTER XX. 



UNITED ITALY, 

ONE of the first measures of reform introduced 
by the king of Sardinia was the restriction of 
reHgious corporations, and the taking possession of 
the church property by the government. This was 
a very necessary measure, since the amount of un- 
taxable church 'property, and the number of persons 
devoted to a monastic hfe exceeded all reasonable 
bounds. In the kingdom of Sardinia alone, there 
were eighteen thousand persons vowed to a mon- 
astic life. All these and thousands of other eccle- 
siastics, bishops, and priests, were not amenable 
to .the civil authority, no matter what crime they 
might commit. The Catholic Church also claimed 
the right to try, by ecclesiastical courts, persons 
accused of blasphemy, and whatever crime it con- 
strued to be against the church. It was therefore 
determined by the king and his ministers to remedy 
this glaring abuse of churchly authority. As the 
pope had consented to the jurisdiction of the civil 
laws and courts over ecclesiastics in Austria, Spain, 
Portugal, and France, it seemed reasonable to believe 
that he would willingly grant the same in Sardinia ; 

[235] 



236 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

but when the proposed reforms were reported to 
Pius IX, he refused to consent to the measure. The 
plan was carried out nevertheless. The bill making 
ecclesiastics amenable to the civil courts, received 
the sanction of the king and became a law. The 
freedom of the press was decreed, and civil marriage 
was allowed. Many of these abuses of clerical 
authority which the king sought to rectify, had 
come down from the Dark Ages, when the Catholic 
Church was the literal master of kings and people ; 
but they were swept away like thistledown by the 
reviving breath of liberty. For these acts the pope 
excommunicated the king of Sardinia, and anathe- 
matized all Vv'ho aided him in his work. 

In 1852 Count Cavour, the master-spirit of that 
time, became premier of Sardinia. He entered 
fully into the hopes and plans of Victor Emmanuel 
for a united Italy. He saw that it would not be a 
difficult task to gain Naples, as the people of that 
country, oppressed by their king, Ferdinand II, 
were ripe for revolt ; but a free and united Italy 
could only be attained by defeating Austria, and 
that was a more serious matter, — so serious that 
Sardinia alone could not hope for success. The 
diplomacy of Cavour gained Sardinia an ally by 
which this result was achieved. 

Upon the breaking out of the Crimean war in 
1852, the world learned with astonishment that 
Sardinia had joined England, France, and Turkey 
in the war against Russia. By this stroke of diplo- 




COUNT CAVOUR. 



UNITED ITALY. 237 

macy, Cavour brought his country into prominence 
in Europe, and earned the gratitude of the alHed 
powers ; hence when the Council of Paris met, in 
1856, to settle the terms of peace between Russia 
and the allied powers, Cavour was present as the 
representative of Sardinia, and laid the condition of 
Italy before the congress. By the distinction which 
the Sardinian troops gained in the war, and by his 
skill at the congress, he secured the moral support 
of England, and the promise of more tangible as- 
sistance from Louis Napoleon, emperor of France. 

By 1859 the arrangements between Napoleon and 
Cavour were completed, and a marriage between 
the daughter of Victor Emmanuel and Prince 
Jerome Bonaparte cemented the union between the 
two countries. Almost simultaneously Napoleon 
and Victor Emmanuel used expressions which could 
only be understood as a menace of war upon Aus- 
tria ; but as Austria had committed no new act of 
aggression against Sardinia that might be considered 
a sufficient pretext for war, there were no imme- 
diate hostilities, and the world was in doubt as 
to what the result would be. Victor Emmanuel, 
though desiring war for the great results to be ob- 
tained, did not wish to begin the war, as he desired 
the moral support of Europe and the world. 

On April 25, 1859, the Austrian government, 
believing that war was inevitable, took the initia- 
tive, by sending a demand from Vienna to Turin, 
that Victor Emmanuel should cease his menacing 



238 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

attitude toward Austria, and disband the Italian 
volunteers that had flocked to his standard from all 
Italy. This gauge of battle was promptly taken up 
by the king of Sardinia, and April 27, war was de- 
clared against Austria. By the middle of the next 
month the French army was in Italy, and the bat- 
tles of Palestro, Montebello, Magenta, and Solfe- 
rino, all of which were won by the allies, reduced 
the Austrians to a condition where they were 
anxious for peace. 

Then one of the greatest infamies of the age was 
perpetrated. Louis Napoleon concluded a secret 
treaty of peace with the emperor, Francis Joseph, 
of Austria, by which Sardinia was cheated out of 
a great portion of that for which she had hoped so 
long, and which she had sought to obtain by the 
war. While the w^ar was in progress, several of 
the states of Italy, namely, Tuscany, Modena, and 
Parma, which had been dependent upon Austria, 
rose in rebellion and declared in favor of an an- 
nexation to Sardinia ; but by the treaty of Villa 
Franca, concluded, between Louis Napoleon and 
the emperor of Austria, Sardinia was prohibited 
from receiving these states, and even Venetia was 
to be retained by Austria. All that Sardinia gained 
by this war was Lombardy. Nice and Savoy were 
ceded to France for her support. The indignation 
of Cavour was great at this settlement, but there 
V^as no help for it at the time, 




Louis Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel Entering Milan 
After the Battle of Solferino. 
i8 



UNITED ITALY. 239 

To show how Httle Louis Napoleon and Francis 
Joseph apprehended the feehngs of the people, or 
how little they cared for them, and how slight was 
their knowledge of the inevitable trend of affairs 
in Italy, it is enough to say that they proposed a 
scheme for the further settlement of Italian affairs 
by which the pope was to be really the chief head 
of all Italy ! They planned a confederation of all 
the petty kingdoms and duchies of Italy, including 
Sardinia, with the pope as president of the whole ! 
Louis Napoleon, however, maintained a determina- 
tion that there should be no armed intervention in 
carrying out these plans for Italy, and his usual 
dilatory policy left the people to shape affairs to 
their own pleasure. The spirit and temper of the 
people, the skill of Cavour, and the defeat of both 
Austria and France by Prussia, a few years later, 
saved Italy from so disgraceful a settlement. 

The next great move for Italian unity was the 
overthrow of the Neapolitan government and the 
annexation of its territory to Sardinia. The active 
agent of this movement was Garibaldi. It was the 
policy of Cavour to take no active part in this 
revolution in Naples, but simply to watch it, and 
secure the fruits of Garibaldi's efforts. The latter, 
with his famous "Thousand of Marsala," marched 
through the country like a conqueror. The gov- 
ernment was well known to be in a shaky condi- 
tion, but it was weaker than the most sanguine 
revolutionist had dared to believe. The king of 



240 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Naples had not the courage to meet Garibaldi in 
battle. He fled to Gaeta, which a short time 
before had sheltered the pope, and strongly en- 
trenched, maintained for a short time a precarious 
existence. In an open carriage Garibaldi rode into 
the city of Naples, and was received with trans- 
ports of joy by the people. 

The magnetic influence of this great patriotic 
leader, and also the circumstances under which at 
this time he entered Naples, may be seen by the 
following description of his entry as told by an eye- 
witness, a correspondent of a London paper. 

* ' The king was still there ; the Neapolitan police 
were sullen and inactive ; what the action of the 
military would be was not known, and upon it 
depended the fortunes of the hour. The people 
turned out in a body to witness the arrival of Gari- 
baldi. Numbers of them climbed upon the engine 
and cars of the slowly approaching train which bore 
the general and his staff to the city. Entering a 
carriage with Cozenz, Garibaldi started, followed by 
three carriages containing his officers of staff. The 
fortress of St. Elmo bristled with guns and gunners, 
and thev were ordered to fire and clear the streets 
with grapeshot as soon as the Garibaldians were 
within range. On the carriage came slowly, amid 
a roar of 'Vivas.' As it approached the guns 
of Castello Nuovo, the artillerymen, with lighted 
matches in their hands, pointed the guns. At that 
moment the voice of Garibaldi rose above the 



UNITED ITALY. 24 1 

uproar, commanding: 'Slower, slower.' This he 
reiterated until the frightened coachman instinc- 
tively obeyed the man whom no one disobeyed. 
Then, under the very mouth of the guns and before 
the gunners, who were already under orders to fire, 
Garibaldi rose to his feet in the carriage, with one 
hand on his breast, and looked fixedly at the artil- 
lerymen. A silence fell on the tumultuous crowd ; 
those who were present declared it was as if Gari- 
baldi magnetized them. Three times the order to 
fire was given, and with his own fate and Italy's 
in the balance, the general stood looking upon the 
men. At the third order the gunners flung away 
.their matches, threw their caps in the air, and 
shouted, 'Viva, Garibaldi.' The city was taken." 

Garibaldi had hoped for a republic ; but after 
enjoying two years dictatorship at Naples, he al- 
lowed the annexation of the kingdom of the two 
Sicilies to Sardinia, agreeable to the wish of the peo- 
ple of Naples and in harmony with a decree of the 
Sardinian council, and Victor Emmanuel took pos- 
session of Naples with the title of King of Italy. 

The pope, who had for some time been undecided 
as to what part he should take in these extraordi- 
nary events which were altering the whole map of 
Italy, now determined upon action. Apparently 
forgetting the words of Christ to Peter, whom he 
claimed to succeed, that all who take the sword 
shall perish with the sword, he now resolved that 
this extension of Sardinia had gone far enough, and 



242 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

that he would resist it by force of arms. The papal 
army was placed under the command of General 
Lamorciere, a veteran of the French wars in Al- 
geria, and many recruits for the papal army were 
gathered at Rome from every Catholic country. As 
this preparation for war could only be aimed by the 
pope at Sardinia, and for the purpose of thwarting 
the will of the people of Naples, who desired to 
form a part of the new kingdom of Italy now aris- 
ing to view, Victor Emmanuel demanded of the 
pope to disband his army. Since by the principle 
laid down at the treaty of Villa Franca, no armed 
intervention was to be allowed, and since this mili- 
tary movement of the pope was a step in that direc- 
tion, the king of Italy was justified in his demand, 
and Louis Napoleon gave his consent that the king 
of Italy might "strike home and strike hard." No 
heed being given to the demand of the king, the 
Italian army, commanded by General Cialdini, ad- 
vanced into the States of the Church. With the 
exception of the French veterans, the papal army 
showed the same antipathy to lighting which had 
characterized the army of the pope at the time of 
the French Revolution. It was soon defeated, and 
General Lamorciere was placed on a vessel, and sent 
to France. The pope was still a temporal king, 
but as a warrior he was a marked failure. Surely 
the times had altered when neither by excommuni- 
cations, anathemas, nor bullets could the desires of 
the church be carried out. 



UNITED ITALY. 243 

Immediately following the invasion of the papal 
states, the courts of all the great powers of Europe, 
except England, protested, and ceased diplomatic 
relations with the king of Italy ; but Victor Em- 
manuel was not frightened thereby, for he at once 
set out to take possession of his new dominions. 
He met Garibaldi at Capua, and afterward they 
rode through the streets of Naples together. Gari- 
baldi was not able to reconcile the radical repub- 
licans to the rule of the king, but believing that it 
was the best that could be done, he yielded his au- 
thority to the king, and retired to his home on the 
island of Caprera. Then followed the siege and 
surrender of Gaeta, and the king and queen of 
Naples were permitted to retire to Rome. Thus 
the whole kingdom of Naples passed into the hands 
of Victor Emmanuel. 



CHAPTER XXL 



ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 

JUST at this critical time in Italian history, Ca- 
vour died (June 6, 1861). Strange as it may 
seem, he had builded better than he knew, for his 
death solidified his work. It was seen by the 
world that he was a great statesman, and the 
powers of Europe which had protested against 
some of his last acts, and had assumed a threaten- 
ing attitude toward the king of Italy, relented at 
the death of his great minister. How he was re- 
garded in England may be inferred from the fol- 
lowing words spoken by Lord Palmerston in the 
British House of Commons, the day after Cavour's 
death : * ' The moral which is to be drawn from 
the life of Count Cavour is this, — that a man of 
transcendent talents, of indomitable energy, and 
inexhaustible patriotism, may, by the impulses 
which his own single mind may give to his coun- 
trymen, aiding a righteous cause, and seizing 
favorable opportunities notwithstanding difficulties 
that at first sight seem insurmountable, confer on 
his country the greatest and most inestimable 
benefits. " 

[244] 



ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 245 

A general recognition of what the king of Italy 
had gained was now accorded by the powers of 
Europe. Louis Napoleon, who always favored 
Italian unity much more than did the people over 
whom he ruled, took the lead by a generous ac- 
knowledgment of Italian unity as far as it had 
been secured, and his action was soon followed by 
Prussia and Russia. 

Only two impediments now remained in the way 
of the unification of Italy, — Austria yet possessed 
Venetia, and the city of Rome was still occupied 
by a French army. While all lovers of Italian 
unity were agreed that the possession of the city 
of Rome was necessary, there was not a unanimity 
of thought as to the manner of its acquisition. 
Cavour had always held the opinion that Rome 
must be gained through diplomacy, but the radicals 
held that it might be taken at any time by force of 
arms. Garibaldi took the latter view. His suc- 
cess in Naples having made him certain that Rome 
might be taken in the same way, he resolved to 
make the trial. Accordingly, setting out from 
Caprera, with a small following, he invaded the 
papal states. Although the king of Italy was will- 
ing that Garibaldi should proceed, that he might 
ascertain the feelings of the people of Rome, and 
also see how Europe would regard a movement 
against Rome, he knew that it would not do to 
allow the papal states to be invaded by a handful 
of adventurers. He therefore interposed an army. 



246 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Garibaldi was defeated at Aspromonte by the 
troops of the king of Italy, severely wounded, and 
taken prisoner. So dear a place had the hero in 
the hearts of the Italian people, that the excite- 
ment and indignation aroused by these events com- 
pelled the Italian ministry to resign. Their feel- 
ings, and those of the civilized world, were well 
expressed by a poet of that period in the following 
exquisite lines : — 

"Never subdued 'til now, 

Wounded, perchance, to death; 
Did Italy strike the blow ? 

Say it under your breath. 
She struck him ! we strive in vain 

To cover the pain, the shame; 
She struck him who struck not again. 

But fell while shouting her name. 

*' Write the story in tears. 

And let the record be dim, 
Hide this year from the stainless years 

Which each had a wreath for him; 
And tell him, there as he lies, 

He is still our darling chief, 
And never a shame can touch his name, 

But only our love and grief. 

" Blame his folly, and then 

Blush while his deeds you tell. 
Guard his prison, Italian men 

To whom his name is a spell ; 
Breathe his sentence, thou land 

Of which he is still the pride, 
Sign it, O brother hand 

Who fought so long at his side. 




GARIBALDI. 



ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 24/ 

" Italy, valiant and free, 

Forget not the means in the end, 
And king, if this thy rebel be, 

Tell us who is thy friend ? 
Noble the part he played, 

Surely the hour will come 
For thanking his generous aid 

Along the steps to Rome."i 

Victor Emmanuel did not long retain his prison- 
ers, whom he had felt compelled to arrest ; he was 
soon released, and retired again to Caprera. 

In September, 1865, an agreement was entered 
into between France and Italy, in which it was 
stipulated that the French army should be with- 
drawn from Rome inside of two years, and that 
Italy should guarantee the independence of the 
papacy. At this time the city of Florence was 
chosen for the temporary seat of the Italian gov- 
ernment. 

While the acquisition of Rome was very desir- 
able. Providence had decreed that Venetia should 
first be acquired. To secure this important prov- 
ince, Austria must again be defeated ; for there 
was no likelihood that she would willingly yield to 
Italy any of her territory, particularly so important 
a province as Venetia, and the city of Venice at 
the head of the Adriatic Sea. In 1865, when 
neither Rome nor Venetia had been secured, the 
possession of these two desirable acquisitions 

^We have been unable to learn the name of the author of the 
above poem, and we quote from memory. 



248 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

looked to be very remote ; but by a train of re- 
markable events, scarcely paralleled in history, 
both were secured in five years. Divine Provi- 
dence surely overruled all this ; but Cavour, who 
before his death had taken the necessar}^ steps for 
the purpose, is the human agent to whom the 
credit for this phenomenal success is generally 
given. 

Cavour had observed the feeling of rivalry be- 
tween Austria and Prussia as each strove to stand 
at the head of the affairs of central Europe, and he 
was able to discern that Prussia was the coming 
power. At all events, Italy having everything to 
hope and nothing to fear from an alliance with 
Prussia, Cavour determined to use Prussia as he 
had used France for the accomplishment of his 
purpose. An alliance with Prussia was therefore 
formed. 

On June 18, 1866, the Austrian troops began the 
invasion of Prussia ; two days later, Italy declared 
war upon Austria. The fortune of war gave the 
victory to the allies. The king of Italy made no 
headway against the Austrians ; indeed, his army 
sustained a very severe defeat at Custozzi, but he 
kept a large Austrian army occupied while Von 
Moltke defeated the main army of Austria at Konig- 
gratz and Sadowa. Austria invited the mediation 
of the emperor Louis Napoleon, and it was arranged 
that Venetia should be ceded to France, and by 
France to Italy. In this way Venetia was added 



ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 249 

to the Italian kingdom. A vote of the people of 
Venetia ratified this, or at least showed their satis- 
faction with their new position, and the king of 
Italy was hailed with joy by the people, and as- 
sured of their profound loyalty to the house of 
Savoy. 

The reader will now perceive how necessary was 
the possession of Rome to the integrity of the new 
kingdom of Italy. The people of Rome were anx- 
ious for union, and they were kept from an uprising 
only by the presence of a French army, backed by 
the whole power of France. Can a nation be said 
to be independent when its oldest and most honored 
city is held by a foreign power ? — It cannot ; and 
the inevitable trend of events made the evacuation 
of the city by the French, and its occupation by the 
king of Italy, a necessity that could not long be 
delayed. 

There was another reason worthy of mention 
why the new kingdom of Italy needed to possess 
Rome. The divided state of Italy for so many 
centuries had begotten a strong feeling of rivalry 
between the chief cities. Neither Turin, Florence, 
Milan, nor Naples would consent that the other 
should be the capital ; but all Italians of every 
province could unite on Rome, the ancient capital 
of Italy. This feeling which extended throughout 
Italy, was one of the determining causes which im- 
pelled the king of Italy to take Rome, the last step 
in his patriotic life-work. 

19 



250 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Immediately after the war of 1 866, Louis Napo- 
leon, according to his agreement, withdrew his army 
from Rome, where it had been stationed nearly 
twenty years. For the first time in centuries there 
were no foreign soldiers in Italy, and it seemed to 
Italians that the hour of complete redemption for 
Italy was near. Garibaldi, who could not forget 
his cherished hope of the occupation of Rome in 
favor of the very king whose troops had defeated 
him and shot him down at the time of his previous 
effort to take the city, now took the field again 
against the papal states. It is generally believed 
that at this time there was a secret understanding 
between Garibaldi and Ratazzi, who at that time 
was premier of Italy. At all events the Italian 
government did not oppose Garibaldi as it had done 
before. 

As soon as it was seen that the Italian govern- 
ment would not prevent the advance of Garibaldi 
on Rome, by an armed force, a French army was 
hastily despatched from Toulon to prevent Gari- 
baldi from taking the city. There is no doubt that 
Louis Napoleon did this more to please the Catho- 
lics of France than for the purpose of frustrating the 
destiny of Italy. He had several times shown that 
his personal friendship was greater toward Italy 
than was that of the French people. Garibaldi 
was arrested by Italian officers in Tuscany, but he 
was not confined, and was permitted to return to 
his island home. The French army still remained 



ITALY GAINS VENETIA. 2$! 

to protect the pope. Again Garibaldi left Caprera 
and advanced upon Rome. At Mentana he was 
met by the French troops and suffered a crushing 
defeat. In this battle the Chassepot rifles were first 
used, and an expression of the French general De 
Failly, in his official despatch to his government, 
that this battle had demonstrated the value of this 
new weapon, led the Italian people to believe that 
it was largely a desire to test the Chassepot rifle 
that caused the French expedition. This so stirred 
both the king and the people of Italy that the 
friendly feeling hitherto entertained for France was 
gone, and another alliance between France and 
Italy was an impossibility. 

The final crisis was now approaching with great 
rapidity. Ever since the war of 1 866, it had been 
a foregone conclusion that a war between France 
and Prussia was inevitable. Several very trivial 
things are usually referred to as the cause of that 
war, but the real cause was the preponderance 
Prussia had gained in European affairs, which she 
was determined to hold, and which would never be 
secure until France was defeated. 

In view of the probability of a war between these 
two nations, negotiations had been entered upon 
for an alliance of France, Austria, and Italy ; but 
the battle of Mentana, where Italians were used as 
experimental targets for French rifles, caused Italy 
to retire from the proposed alliance, and took from 
France the only power to which she had any 



252 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

reasonable right to look for support. Victor Em- 
manuel, indeed, professed a willingness to enter 
into another French alliance, but his ministers 
were opposed to it, and it was finally decided to 
remain neutral in the Franco-Prussian war. The 
result of that war is well known. The French, full 
of vain confidence because of their former victories, 
unprepared, outnumbered, and outgeneraled, suf- 
fered a succession of crushing defeats. France 
had no troops to spare for the protection of the 
pope ; she had not enough to defend her own bor- 
ders from invasion, and the French army at Rome 
— the very army which had so long blocked the 
way of the Italian occupation of that city — was 
hastily recalled for service in France. Louis Na- 
poleon surrendered at Sedan, and a republic was 
for the third time proclaimed at Paris. Thus the 
king of Italy, having earned the gratitude of Prus- 
sia by his refusal of aNFrench alliance, and seeing 
France now prostrate, found nothing in the way 
of an entrance to Rome, and the full realization 
of his hopes, — a united Italy with Rome for its 
capital. 



CHAPTER XXIL 



END OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. 

THE time had now arrived for the last act which 
would make the unification of Italy complete ; 
namely, the occupation of Rome by Victor Em- 
manuel, and the transfer of the capital from Flor- 
ence to that city. To this end he had looked 
forward ever since he took the throne and the 
cares of state from his discouraged and broken- 
hearted father. That the manifest destiny of Italy 
pointed to this as the final step, was apparent to 
the world. 

As this act did not contemplate any restriction of 
the spiritual power of the pope, or take from the 
papacy anything possessed by it before 753, an 
effort was made to gain the consent of the pope 
to the proposed measure; but Pius IX, with that 
stubbornness which was a marked characteristic 
of his character, especially when on the wrong 
side of any subject, refused all overtures. Sept. 
6, 1870, the king publicly declared his intention 
to take possession of Rome. General Cadorna 
marched an army into the papal states, which 
arrived at Rome on the twentieth of that month. 

[253] 



2 54 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

The surrender of the city was demanded of the 
papal garrison, and this being refused, the city was 
bombarded. No resistance worthy of mention was 
made, and but for the obstinacy of the pope in 
ordering battle, when there was not the least pros- 
pect of success, there would have been no blood 
shed. The Italian army, soon entering the city 
through a breach made in the walls, received an 
enthusiastic welcome from the people. The pope 
stubbornly refused to receive an envoy from the 
king, although Victor Emmanuel, being a devoted 
Catholic, and king of a nation of Catholics, gave 
promise of full protection to him in the administra- 
tion of the spiritual affairs of the Catholic Church. 

The pope was irreconcilable; he posed as a pris- 
oner in his palace, although he was as free to go 
and to come as the king himself ; and his suc- 
cessor, Leo XIII, has pursued the same policy. 
In June, 1871, Victor Emmanuel entered Rome 
and made it his capital, taking up his residence in 
the Quirinal palace. Thus the temporal power of 
the pope came to an end. 

Twenty-five years have now passed since the 
occurrence of the last of these remarkable events. 
The son of Victor Emmanuel reigns over all the 
territory left him by his father. Italy is a nation; 
if not one of the greatest, at least a nation of re- 
spectable strength and importance, and an ally of 
two of the most powerful nations of the world, 
Germany and Austria. If she has not made as 



END OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. 255 

great progress as it was hoped that she would, the 
great ignorance of the people, received by inherit- 
ance from papal influence, and their slavish alle- 
giance to the dogmas of the Catholic Church, must 
be considered as being largely responsible. Nations 
grow slowly. Italy has made as much progress as 
might be expected under the circumstances. Gen- 
erally, the Catholics of Italy are glad that the tem- 
poral power of the popes has been taken away, and 
are full of loyalty to the king, in spite of the efforts 
of the papacy, which has spared no means that 
could be used to destroy the government. 

The recent celebrations of Italian unity on Sept. 
20, 1895, were remarkable for the enthusiasm 
which was manifested all through Italy, and by 
Italians in every country. In Rome, a statue of 
Garibaldi was unveiled in the presence of fifty 
thousand people, near the place where the troops 
of the king of Italy forced their way into the city 
twenty-five years before. Many of Garibaldi's old 
companions in arms were present, and they re- 
ceived from King Humbert, the son and successor 
of Victor Emmanuel, distinguished marks of his 
consideration. Congregations of Protestants now 
worship freely in -Rome ; the inquisition is shown 
as a curiosity to travelers ; and on the very day of 
the celebration above referred to, a Protestant mis- 
sion was opened in the city. 

These celebrations of Italian unity were very of- 
fensive to some Catholics, and the following cable- 



256 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

gram from Cardinal Tascherau, of Quebec, to the 
pope on that anniversary day expresses their feel- 
ings : — 

**0n this sad anniversary, which so cruelly re- 
opened all the wounds in your paternal heart, it is 
for me a duty of filial piety, most holy father, to 
express to you the pain which all Catholics of Can- 
ada feel. The pastors and all the faithful extend 
to heaven their suppliant prayers that your chains 
may be broken, and that the vicar of Christ, and 
the supreme chief of the church, the father of peo- 
ples, the friend and protector of the sciences, be 
given the liberty to which he is entitled." 

It is pertinent here to inquire, What is that 
liberty, the loss of which the pope and this Cana- 
dian cardinal and many American ecclesiastics so 
deplore ? He is as free to administer in spiritual 
affairs to the great Catholic Church, of which he 
is the acknowledged and revered head, as is any 
Catholic bishop in Italy or in America to do the 
same in his diocese. He is not a prisoner ; he is 
under no more restrictions than is Cardinal Gib- 
bons, of Baltimore, or Archbishop Ireland, of St. 
Paul. The refusal of the pope to leave the Vati- 
can is self-imprisonment ; it is like the action of a 
spoiled and pettish child, who, because he cannot 
have his own way, sits and sulks. 

The freedom which the pope desires is the free- 
dom to be an earthly monarch. He is not satis- 
fied with being the head of the Catholic Church, 



END OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. 2^7 

but he wants to be a king, and equal with, and su- 
perior to, the kings of the world. He who claims 
to be the vicar of Christ, the especial representa- 
tive of Him who said, ' ' My kingdom is not of this 
world," wants an earthly kingdom. He wants to 
send representatives of his government and of his 
church as ambassadors to the governments of other 
nations, that he may influence these governments 
to make laws to promote the welfare of that 
church, and to punish those adjudged by that 
church to be heretics, as was done by his predeces- 
sors in the Dark Ages. He would enjoy the free- 
dom of influencing governments to declare the 
Catholic religion the religion of the state, that the 
government might build Catholic churches, support 
Catholic schools, pay Catholic priests, and prevent 
all other public worship, as was universally done 
by popes in past ages, and is now done in Spain 
and some of the South American countries. This 
is the freedom the pope desires ; this is the free- 
dom the loss of which he so greatly mourns ; this 
is the freedom which was taken away by the Italian 
Revolution, terminating with the taking of the city 
of Rome by Victor Emmanuel, in 1870. 

Will this freedom be restored ? The freedom to 
dominate, persecute, and take from the people 
natural and unalienable rights, is not the freedom 
which this age is inclined to favor. Hence the 
return of the papacy to power, if ever accom- 
plished, can only be done by deceiving the people 



258 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

in regard to her true character, ambition, and 
aims. 

Into the discussion of the future history of the 
papacy, we do not purpose to enter. Such a ques- 
tion, important as it is, is not within the province of 
this book, which aims to record only what has been 
and what is. There are many students of proph- 
ecy who beheve that the temporal power of the 
popes will be regained, that the Catholic Church 
will also obtain an influence in the world similar to 
what she once possessed, and that she will use that 
power and influence to persecute and destroy those 
who will not accept her creed. If this shall be done, 
if the expectation and hope of the Catholic Church 
and the fears of many Protestants shall be realized, 
and another European revolution shall restore the 
Roman pontiffs to what they denominate freedom, 
then let all be warned that this freedom will mean 
the slavery of the world, — a turning back of the 
hands on the dial of human progress, the invasion 
of the liberty of every man under the influence of 
that church, and of the governments with which it 
becomes connected. May that God who has so 
graciously proclaimed liberty from papal darkness, 
to many captives, still be gracious to the world, 
and grant an increase, rather than a diminution, of 
religious freedom to mankind. 



CHAPTER XXIIL 



THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 

IT has been proved in the preceding chapters that 
the idea of a primacy is unknown in the Scrip- 
tures, and that the primacy which was estabhshed, 
was only accompHshed by unholy ambition and an 
unchristian seeking for spiritual supremacy, entirely 
foreign to the spirit and teachings of Christ and 
his apostles ; we have also seen that it was ac- 
complished after long centuries of plotting and 
scheming, and especially by the union of this then 
apostate church with the Roman state, and that it 
finally resulted in bringing the Roman state and 
many other states under the control of the church ; 
that a large part of the Christian church always 
protested against it ; and that the separation be- 
tween the churches of the East and the West in the 
eleventh century was to some extent over this ques- 
tion ; for the Eastern Church never accepted the 
supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Since that time 
numerous bodies of Christians have denied the doc- 
trine of the primacy. The great reformers of the 
sixteenth century made the denial of the primacy a 
cardinal feature of their work, and it is held by none 

[259] 



26o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

but by the Roman Catholic Church. This church 
firmly maintains this doctrine as a fundamental por- 
tion of its creed. 

Since it is clearly manifest that Romanism is 
a departure from the simplicity of the primitive 
church, not only in her doctrines but also in her 
system of church government, it will be proper to 
state here what we believe that primitive system 
to be, the Scriptural ideal, which existed for a time, 
but which the apostasy prevented from continued 
and permanent existence in the universal church. 
Such a statement is due to our readers, that the 
true and false systems may both clearly be seen. 

There is to be no primacy. The gospel is de- 
signed for all the world. Churches are to be raised 
everywhere, but there is no provision in the Chris- 
tian system whereby one man, or a conclave of men 
in continual session, is to take the charge of the 
work of the gospel in all the world. Such a task 
would be entirely beyond the capacity of man. The 
world is large ; and the idea that one man, or one 
body of men, could take into consideration the 
spiritual needs of all believers in Christ, or the 
spiritual needs of many thousands of believers in 
Christ, which are scattered throughout the world, 
is preposterous. The bishop of Rome, with his 
corps of assistants, finds it exceedingly difficult to 
oversee the affairs of the Catholic Church alone. 
This inability has often been confessed by sending 
especially appointed legates to distant countries to 



NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 26 1 

listen for the pope and to act for him. In every 
CathoHc country there are difBcult questions which 
have waited for years for a decision, because the 
papal consistory has no time to consider their mat- 
ters. Such is the inevitable result of placing upon 
one body of men more work than they can properly 
perform. 

Agam : no one knows so well what to do in a 
country -as the people who live there, and have 
studied the situation. Now if, in addition to all the 
labors of the pope, which are claimed to be over- 
whelming, there should be added to his burden all, 
the affairs of the Greek Church and the whole of 
Protestantism, how could the Roman pontiff be able 
to endure the strain ? Moreover, Christianity is 
progressive, and so the burden would continually in- 
crease unto the end of time. Politically, the world 
is divided into many civil governments, and each 
civil head with many helpers finds enough to do to 
manage its own civil affairs ; but the pope thinks 
himself able to direct the ecclesiastical affairs of all 
the world ! No wonder that he claims to be infal- 
lible. To do the work which he holds has been 
given him to do, he should not only be infallible, 
but omnipotent as well. In short, he would need 
to possess all the attributes of the Deity, whose 
rightful place he has usurped. 

The thing nearest to universal authority and 
headship in the church is the action of a general 
council. The 15th chapter of the Acts of the 



262 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

Apostles will ever stand as unmistakable evidence 
that the measure of authority, which primarily be- 
longs to the church as a whole, is, at special times, 
and for certain definite purposes, vested in a coun- 
cil ; that the council may be summoned whenever 
great questions arise which threaten division in the 
church, or at regular intervals if necessary, for the 
consideration of questions which affect the interests 
of the whole church ; and that the decisions of the 
councils so convened, are advisory rather than ac- 
tually obligatory on the church. Stated broadly, 
actual legislative power is not committed to the 
church. All actual legislation was done by Christ. 

For should we admit that everything which a 
council does is actually of force, where, then, 
among the early councils shall we draw the line, 
and say, Before this time the decisions oi the coun- 
cils were obligatory, and afterward they were not 
binding ? Can we fix the definite point where the 
church, by her backsliding, departed from God so 
that she lost the power to legislate ? or can we tell 
where, by what church, or at what time, that lost 
power, if lost it was, has been restored .'' No man 
can do it. This fact alone would substantiate the 
statement that the true function of a council is 
advisory and not legislative. 

A Christian council is a convention for a limited 
space of time. When it is in actual session, it is 
the repository of all the authority there is in the 
church, and therefore its decisions should not be 



NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 263 

lightly regarded. But when a council is disbanded, 
the general and advisory power vested therein is 
for the time suspended until the next council ; and 
there is no provision in the Christian system of 
church government by which the authority of the 
general and universal council may be transferred to 
any one who shall represent the council between 
its sessions, and thus form a general and continuous 
head to the church on earth. This would be a 
usurpation of the place of Jesus Christ, the only 
true head of the church. 

Continuous and general authority over the whole 
church by men, involves a responsibility so great 
that God, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, 
thought it not best that it be committed to a man 
or men. Men have thought otherwise, not shrink- 
ing from taking a position which God has never 
authorized them to take, and the result is the pa- 
pacy and other systems partaking of its spirit and 
methods. The gospel rule that the church and the 
individual Christian have but one Master, and that 
he is in heaven, is of universal application ; but it 
may be truly said that it has been almost univer- 
sally broken. There have been men in many 
churches aside from Rome, who were practically 
masters — actual popes in their smaller spheres. 

What, then, is necessary to constitute an earthly 
head, a master of the church ? Not so much, per- 
haps, as many people imagine. Stated in a sim- 
ple manner, to possess an earthly head, a church 



264 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

needs but to have one man, or one body of men, 
constantly taking the oversight of the work of the 
church in all parts of the world alike. This will 
generally necessitate a permanent and central place 
for frequent conference and consultation ; the 
communication to this body of the state of the 
different portions of the church in every part of 
the world where this church has any organization ; 
and the consideration of the same with directions 
and commands to the church everywhere. When 
a church has this, it has, as far as the headship is 
concerned, though it may be upon a smaller scale, 
a miniature of that first great headship located on 
the Tiber, — -it has that for which there is no war- 
rant in the Scriptures. 

The churches of Jesus Christ, in any and every 
country, must have organization, and men should 
be elected" by free vote of the members to take the 
oversight of the affairs of the church ; but these 
men would be heads only for a limited time over a 
small portion of the church. The men elected would 
be quite well known, probably personally known to 
all. They would not be removed from those who 
gave them their temporary authority by an exag- 
gerated height of excellence or knowledge, and 
hence any attempt by them to exert an unauthor- 
ized and arbitrary power would be quickly checked 
by the body of the church, which is the superior au- 
thority and final arbiter in all matters pertaining to 
itself. 



NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 265 

The head over the whole church, whether com- 
posed of one man or of several men, can actually 
be known only to a comparatively small number 
of the church. This offers a good opportunity to 
those who hold this place of becoming the objects 
of superstitious reverence, and prepares the way 
for the continual increase of the power of the few, 
and the lessening of the influence of the body. We 
see this clearly manifested in the relations of the 
pope to the Catholic clergy and people, where each 
looks to his superior, until the highest power, the 
pope, is reached. 

The gospel plan is a better way than this ; it al- 
lows a greater degree of freedom and independence 
to the members of the church, and also provides 
for such concentration of effort as will carry the 
gospel to the world, and furnish pastoral care to 
the churches already established. This may be 
seen by referring to the Acts of the Apostles. 

As the apostles went forth proclaiming the gos- 
pel, churches were raised ; and after these had been 
sufficiently proved and elders had been ordained in 
every city (Titus i : 5), these churches took their 
places as independent parts of the church of Christ. 
Not that they were independent of the advisory 
power of the general council, if anything among 
them needed to be considered by that body upon 
its convention, but aside from that they were inde- 
pendent. These churches would naturally form 
into associations for mutual counsel and co-opera- 
20 



266 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

tion, but in them there existed no arbitrary au- 
thority more than exists in every separate church 
for the correction and disciphne of its members. 
Church history shows that this was the case before 
the apostasy had changed the simple order of the 
apostles and the primitive church. The boundaries 
of these associations would often be determined 
by natural barriers, such as mountains, rivers, and 
seas. As the gospel spread and went to many 
nations, the boundaries of civil governments would 
become the most natural boundaries of the divisions 
of the church. 

The fact that nearly all countries have a lan- 
guage of their owm, which is not understood by the 
people of other countries, would make this natural 
division almost imperative. The word divisions, as 
used above, is not here meant to teach that the 
church would be divided in spirit or in doctrine. 
Each country would have within its boundaries a 
portion of the one indivisible church. These divi- 
sions might be great or small, as circumstances and 
the changing affairs of the world should demand ; 
but every such body was independent, except in the 
matter of the general councils, as before declared. 
They could hold local and inferior councils for the 
consideration of their own peculiar fields, and the 
right to elect all their own of^cers inhered in every 
such fractional part of the church. Nor could any 
authority in the church, outside of themselves, in- 
trude into their councils to interfere in the manage- 



NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 26/ 

ment of local matters, without their consent. Their 
missionary enterprises, schools of learning, and all 
local affairs were under their own separate and 
complete control. 

Such an organization of the church left no place 
for a general earthly head. There was no disgraceful 
scheming to place in the highest position men who 
would favor the people of one nation more than 
another. There was no cause for heartburnings 
because one country was honored as the place of 
the head of the church, — the center of general 
authority, — or because the men of one nation- 
ality held all the high offices in the church. The 
churches within the bounds of any nation were 
national only in the sense that they were generally 
composed of the people of one nation. The churches 
in each state had no connection with the state as 
state churches. As citizens they were subject to the 
civil laws of the state; as Christians they obeyed 
the law of God. In case these laws conflicted, the 
Christian would say, ' ' We ought to obey God rather 
than men." 

It will be seen that if this ideal of primitive 
Christianity had been followed, many things which 
now exist would be unknown. State churches, 
with their attendant train of evils, would never 
have been heard of. It would not have been the 
Church of England, but the Church of Jesus Christ 
in England. The same principle would have been 
carried out wherever Christianity was established. 



268 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

and every such division of the church would be in- 
dependent, managing its own affairs ; for if God is 
able to endow his servants in one country with suffi- 
cient wisdom rightly to conduct the affairs of the 
church, and to take the oversight of its members, 
he has the power, and will bestow the same en- 
dowments upon his servants in all other countries. 

But the church has always suffered from having 
in it men who have believed that unless they took 
charge of the work everywhere, it would not be 
done right. Spiritual pride has blinded the minds 
of hundreds, leading them to distrust the capacity 
and 'even the honesty of their brethren, and to think 
that without their own efforts the work of the 
Lord would be a failure. It was this spirit which 
led to the establishment of the papal supremacy, 
and it has often been repeated on a smaller scale 
in other churches. 

As the apostolic plan provided for the liberty and 
independence of the church in the various countries 
in which it had become established, to enlarge the 
borders of Zion, so provision also was made for 
the propagation of the faith in those countries 
where Christ was not yet named. There were 
various gifts placed in the church. i Cor. 12 : 28 ; 
Eph. 4 : 10, II. There were pastors to take the 
charge of congregations which were established, 
and there were apostles and evangelists, whose 
especial work was to extend the knowledge of 
Christ into the "regions beyond." Paul was an 



NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 269 

apostle to the Gentiles. He did not feel himself 
called to do the work of a pastor, or even to bap- 
tize. Rom. I 5 : 20 ; i Cor. 1:17. He was a man 
especially endowed of the Lord as an evangelist, to 
raise up congregations of believers where ' ' Christ 
was not named." But after the churches thus 
raised by him were fully confirmed (Acts 1 5 : 36, 
41 ; 18 : 23), and elders ordained in every city 
(Titus I : 5), they were as independent as the 
churches of Judea. These organizations had the 
right to send out laborers into new fields without 
consulting with any other and older organization. 
Paul and Barnabas were sent out into the great 
Gentile field by the church at Antioch. Acts 13 : 
I, 2. This action of the church at Antioch was 
entirely independent of the churches of Judea. 
God could direct as well at Antioch as at Jerusa- 
lem, and the Holy Ghost operated directly upon 
the brethren at Antioch to send out these men as 
ambassadors of Christ. There is no evidence that 
the elders at Jerusalem or the twelve apostles were 
consulted in the matter. The voice of God was 
heard in a branch of his church ; and under his 
direction, and that of the church at Antioch, Paul 
and Barnabas went on their heaven-sent mission. 
The church at Philippi at one time took upon itself 
the task of supporting the apostle Paul, sending to 
him by a special messenger money or other means 
when he was in distant lands. Phil. 4: 15. No 
doubt other churches did the same. These are 



2/0 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

specimens of apostolic practise before the rigid 
rules of a hierarchy had crushed all the sponta- 
neous life and liberty out of the church. 

These are examples of apostolic practise ; and 
the nearer any church can come to the system 
which existed in the primitive church, in principle, 
if not in all the minutia, the more certain it will 
be that it is in harmony with the divine mind. 
We do not mean to claim that there was not a 
systematic and regular way of supporting the gos- 
pel ministry, but we simply maintain that there 
was also opportunity, when necessary, for separate 
and independent church and individual work of 
this character. 

If any organized body of Christians, comprising 
what they themselves believe to be the church, 
wish to act in harmony with apostolic practise, 
they should send out laborers into other countries 
where the gospel has not yet penetrated. The 
duty to do this is imperative as long as there is 
such a country on the earth. They may combine 
their efforts, and entrust certain men of ability and 
discretion among them to constitute a body which 
shall take charge of such work of evangelization, 
that it may be done in a uniform and economical 
manner. They may contribute to these men and 
to the work in which they are engaged ; but such 
a body of men could have no Scriptural authority 
to direct in the affairs of the churches which au- 
thorized them for this work of evangelization. 



NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 2/1 

Furthermore, when the behevers in any mission- 
ary field have become sufficiently numerous and 
well instructed for organization after the manner 
of the organization by which the gospel was 
brought to them, and have been so indoctrinated 
in the truth that they have become a part of the 
body of Christ, then they should be organized, the 
proper officers be elected and ordained, and this 
new organization would become a part of the one 
and indivisible church, and enjoy the same inde- 
pendence possessed by the churches through whose 
instrumentality they received the gospel. In this 
way the independence of the various branches of 
the church, built up by their own pastors and 
teachers, would be maintained ; and at the same 
time aggressive and systematic work would be done 
for those who are in darkness, not to bring them 
into bondage, but to secure to them the sweet 
liberty in Christ, that fills the souls of those who 
have joined together to send to them a Heavenly 
Father's message of love. 

Finally, in closing this line of thought, it may be 
said that the subjection of one church to another 
in the supremacy of the Church of Rome, and the 
supremacy of one bishop over another in matters 
purely spiritual, paved the way for the subjection 
of the state to the church. In other words, if 
there had been no supremacy in the church, there 
would have been no supremacy of the church ; it 
could never have gained the control of the state. 



2/2 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

The papacy is the result of an apostasy in the 
church, which became very nearly general. That 
apostasy began by the desire for supremacy among 
the bishops in the church, resulting in the perver- 
sion of the gospel rule and the establishment in the 
church of a government similar to the civil govern- 
ment of pagan Rome. Its final control of the 
Roman state was but the natural and logical se- 
quence which must follow such a church govern- 
ment for so great and universal a church. 

The whole history of the Roman Catholic Church 
evinces this fact. The subjection of the state to 
the church was simply a further carrying out and 
amplification of the spirit of supremacy engendered 
in the church, so that the spirit that would domi- 
nate in the church, subjecting the whole body to 
the will of a few, is the same spirit that would 
bring all civil authority, if possible, to the same 
abject condition. In this matter the principles 
of the gospel are well stated by Paul : ' ' For, breth- 
ren, ye have been called unto liberty ; only use not 
liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love 
serve one another." Gal. 5:13. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 



THE RELATION OF CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE 

CHURCH, TO THE MEMBERS OF HIS 

BODY, AND THEIR RELATION 

TO EACH OTHER. 

SINCE no earthly head of the church was formed 
or authorized by Christ or his apostles, ^nd 
since the church which grew out of their labors 
received no divine authority to form such a head, 
it follows that the church, which has the right to 
elect all authorized officers, has no right to make 
such a head, — to empower a man, or several men, 
to take the continuous oversight of its work in all 
countries. Every attempt to do so is contrary to 
God's revealed will, and must result in damage to 
the cause of Christ. There was no such earthly 
head before the papacy was established. Infinite 
wisdom saw no necessity for such a head, because 
it would lead to the exaltation of those forming it, 
to their exceeding great hurt, elevating them to the 
place of God, and by so doing infringe upon the 
just rights of many. 

It has been held by some that uniformity in the 
church cannot be obtained without some central, 

[273] 



274 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

continuous authority. This is a favorite argument 
of the CathoHc Church; but it cannot be expected 
that the church in all countries will be exactly 
uniform in all things. There is such a thing as 
uniformity in diversity. There should be perfect 
uniformity in righteousness, but national character- 
istics in many things may be allowed. Uniformity 
often means nothing but that some one makes un- 
necessary rules for others to follow. To expect 
that all the customs of Christians in vogue in one 
country shall be practised by Christians in all coun- 
tries is preposterous. It is a fact that many zeal- 
ousXhristians think their national peculiarities are 
an important part of the Christian religion. There 
is no actual uniformity among the members of one 
individual church ; hence to expect that the prac- 
tises of Christians in all parts of the world, aside 
from those things distinctly commanded in the 
Scriptures, will all be alike, is as ridiculous as to 
expect that they will all dress alike, or subsist on 
the same kind of food. No universal headship is 
therefore needed on the ground that it will pro- 
mote uniformity. 

Man's own weakness should suggest to him that 
he cannot be the head of the church. The head 
of the church needs every superior qualification, 
— perfect wisdom, omnipotence, omniscience, and 
infallibility. Man has none of these attributes, 
hence Jesus, in whom all fulness dwells, retains to 
himself the sole headship of his church. 




w ■ 




'? M^-L,m^ 



CHRIST'S RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 2/5 

Christ is the head of the church as a whole, 
because he is the head of every member of his 
church. Real Christians are not only united to 
the church, but they are joined to Christ himself. 
They are not joined to Christ because they are 
united to the church, but they belong to the church 
by virtue of their union with Christ. The union 
with Christ is of the first importance ; it is the 
primary union resulting from their accepting him 
as their Saviour. 

The relation which Christ sustains to those who 
believe in him is set forth by Paul in several places. 
Thus, in his letter to the Ephesians, he says that 
Christ has been raised above all principality, and 
power, , and every name that is named, not only in 
this world, but also in that which is to come ; and 
that God hath put all things under his feet, and 
given him to be the head over all things to the 
church, which is his body, the fulness of him that 
filleth all in all.^ 

In this scripture, Christ in his relation to his 
church occupies a position similar to that which 
the head does to the different members of the hu- 
man body. Hence, any power — any man or men 
who take Christ's place — would separate Christ 
from those who compose that body, thus separating 
them from the life of Christ and his controlling 
influence, in reality taking the place of Christ. In 
harmony with this idea, Paul, writing prophetically 
of a power that was to arise, says of it that he 

* Chap, 1 : 21-23. 



2/6 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

''opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is 
called God, or that is worshiped ; so that he as God 
sitteth in the temple of God [the place which be- 
longs to God alone], showing himself that he is 
God." 2 Thess. 2:3, 4. 

The unity of Christ with his church, and his per- 
sonal oversight over it, are well described by Paul 
in Eph. 4 : 13-16. Describing the gifts which are 
bestowed upon the church, he says that their object 
is to bring all to the " unity of the faith, and of the 
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
Christ : that we henceforth be no more children, 
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind 
of doctrine, . . . whereby they lie in wait to de- 
ceive ; but speaking the truth in love, may grow 
up into him in all things, which is the head, even 
Christ : from whom the whole body fitly joined 
together and compacted by that which every joint 
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the 
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body 
unto the edifying of itself in love." 

This is a very important scripture upon the head- 
ship of Christ. The idea of a growth in spiritual 
things from childhood to manhood is. presented. 
To be a perfect man, and to attain to the fulness 
of Christ, is the hope and object of the Christian. 
This can be attained only by personal spiritual 
contact with the divine Head of the church. One 
cannot be perfect unless there be a connection 



Christ's relation to the church. 277 

between him and the perfect God-man, Christ 
Jesus, the head of the church. None can receive 
the fulness of righteousness except he receive it 
directly from him in ' ' whom dwelleth all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead bodily." Receiving the truth 
from him, the believer "may grow up into him in 
all things, which is the head, even Christ." To him 
all the body — every Christian — is '' fitly joined, " 
and by this connection is furnished to the believer 
in Jesus that power and grace which supplies all he 
needs to live a godly life, so. that he grows up into 
Christ his head, becoming like him from whom his 
life is derived. 

In I Corinthians 12 Paul further illustrates this 
idea of the headship of the church by entering into 
quite a minute description of the relation of the 
head of a human being to its different members, 
and applying the figure to the relation of Christ to 
his body, the church. The object of this descrip- 
tion and comparison appears to be to show the 
equality of all the members, their dependence upon 
Christ, his headship over, and relation to, them all, 
and the mutual sympathy and forbearance that 
should exist between the individual Christians who 
compose the spiritual body of Christ. The foot, 
the hand, and other members of the body are 
taken to represent individual Christians. Christ is 
the head ; and as the various members of the human 
body are connected to the head, so those who be- 
lieve in Christ are connected with him. That is to 



2/8 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

say, If a Christian be represented by a hand, he is 
not joined to the head by means of another Chris- 
tian, or Christians, represented by the arm. In the 
figure used, the intervening parts of the body be- 
tween the head and the hand are not taken into 
account. The hand, the foot, — every Christian, — 
is joined directly to the head. Unless this be so, 
there is no personal connection between Christ and 
the believer. 

The head can move one finger without affecting 
the arm, and so through all intervening objects 
Christ moves directly upon the hearts of his chil- 
dren. They are all joined to him ; they compose 
the " general assembly and church of the first-born, 
which are written in heaven." Church organiza- 
tions as they exist in the world, while serving a 
useful purpose as the visible representation of the 
body of Christ, are necessarily imperfect, since in 
the most carefully guarded church, deceivers and 
hypocrites will enter. The Christian worker, as 
he gathers together those who profess to believe 
the gospel, places in the spiritual house, as he sees 
it, material, which is fitly represented by "gold, 
silver, precious stories, " — persons who have really 
repented of their sins, and hence are of real moral 
worth and stability of character, whose Christianity 
is not a mere profession but a life. But since 
Christian ministers, and all who labor in the word 
and doctrine, are not infallible, they also gather 
for their spiritual building persons who are repre- 



Christ's relation to the church. 279 

sented by "wood, hay, stubble." i Cor. 3 : 12. 
Such is the composition of the visible church of 
Christ. Many of the members of this body have 
no vital connection with Christ. They belong to 
the visible but not to the invisible church. By 
usurpation and perversion of the Scriptures, men 
may even become the head of the church in its 
earthly aspect ; but of the spiritual church, com- 
posed alone of true believers, whose names are 
written in heaven, none but Christ can be the 
head ; for he knows all who are joined to him, and 
he will be head to no others. In the great day of 
God the final decision will be made; the "gold, 
silver, precious stones " will be separated from the 
"wood, hay, stubble," "for the day shall declare 
it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire 
shall try every man's work of what sort it is." 

The popes of Rome, having assumed the head- 
ship of the church on earth, have claimed to be 
able to decide upon the characters of men here, 
cursing, and even taking the life of those whom 
they have pronounced heretics. This is the inevi- 
table result of having such a head. Those who 
compose such a headship, by their very position 
are led to cherish a disposition to censure, con- 
demn, and drive from the church, and the work of 
the church, if not from the world, those who do not 
accept the views of the head ; so that there never 
was and never can be any such thing as Christian 
liberty in a church upon which the incubus of an 



28o THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

earthly head has been foisted. A study of the his- 
tory of the Roman Church will fully confirm the 
truthfulness of this latter statement. 

If the Christian church is to be perpetuated in 
the form in which it was given to men by its divine 
Author and his inspired apostles, the mass of the 
body of Christ — the common members of the 
church — will need to watch closely that their re- 
ligious rights and privileges are respected, that 
they are not relegated to the background as though 
of no account, while a few persons absolutely dic- 
tate to them in all things of a spiritual nature. 
They will need to see to it that the men whom 
they elect to positions of honor and responsibility, 
do not transcend the bounds of their legitimate 
functions, gaining little by little by means of en- 
croachments allowed, which soon become crystal- 
lized into established precedents, — an authority 
not warranted in the Scriptures, dangerous to the 
church, and subversive of the liberty of the gospel 
of Christ. 

It is not necessary that men, who gain an ex- 
cess of power in the church, and use that power 
when gained, in an unauthorized and arbitrary man- 
ner should be personally wicked or evil-disposed 
persons. They need only to be self-deceived — 
one of the fatalities which often befalls the best of 
men. The present pope of Rome is a very kindly 
disposed man. There is no question that he be- 
lieves, as fully and sincerely as the most devoted 



Christ's relation to the church. 281 

priest or common Catholic, that he is all that his 
church believes him to be. The same may be 
truthfully said of many other popes. Personal 
character does therefore not enter into the discus- 
sion of this question. It is a question of principles 
rather than of the characters of men. 

Many state churches have contained men of 
great piety and devotion, and the men who have 
composed the head of the various state churches 
have often been men of the most exemplary char- 
acter ; but that has no bearing on the question. 
It is only by comparing the Roman Catholic sys- 
tem of church government and other systems of a 
similar nature, with the divine word of God, in 
which is revealed the true principles of church gov- 
ernment, that the unscriptural and false systems 
may be detected. The word of God will always 
stand in its beautiful symmetry of doctrine as a 
protest and a defense against all false systems 
whatsoever, teaching the pure principles of Christ 
in regard to everything that affects the church and 
the work which has been committed to it to save 
men. Happy will he be, who clings closely to it, 
no matter what the consequences may be ; yea, 
happy and prosperous will be that church, which, 
taking its doctrines entirely from the Scriptures, 
shall model its church government after the same 
infallible Pattern, jealously guarding its own 
heaven-born privileges and liberties ; and which 
shall not fail to frown down any and everything 



282 THE SUPREMACY OF PETER. 

which would change in the least degree the simple 
but effective church government which Infinite 
Wisdom devised for the needs of every people. 

All the Protestant churches descended either di- 
rectly from the Church of Rome, or indirectly from 
her through some other church. This coming out 
did not take place until Rome had made a wide de- 
parture from the practises of the apostolic church, 
and the scriptural plan of church government had 
long been trodden underfoot, to make way for an- 
other system, modeled more after the fashion of 
the government of the pagan Roman Empire than 
upon the democratic simplicity revealed in the 
Scriptures. How natural, and perhaps at the time 
almost unavoidable, that these dissenting churches 
should incorporate into their new organizations some 
portions of the Roman system, which had received 
the sanction of the church through ages. The 
only way to avoid this evil will be by a close study 
of the word of God, and a fixed determination 
to reject whatever does not receive the divine 
sanction. 

Many otherwise true reformers have given little 
attention to church government. Generally speak- 
ing, reformers> have given more thought to doctrines 
which relate more directly to faith and practise 
than to the matter of church organization ; and 
some churches whose doctrines are remarkable for 
their harmony with the Scriptures, have paid little 
attention to the question of church government, the 



Christ's relation to the church. 283 

result being that the Scriptural plan for the gov- 
ernment of the church has never yet been fully 
reached by them. 

The primary object of this work is to show from 
the Scriptures that there was no primacy estab- 
lished by Christ ; that the primacy which was set 
up was evil and evil only. But there is another 
object to be gained. What good will a knowledge 
of the mistakes of past ages be to us, if we unwisely 
repeat and perpetuate those errors ? We should not 
only be able to see the papacy in the great height 
of power to which it attained, but understand also 
the steps by which that height was gained, and 
thus be prepared to avoid them, should we be able 
to discern tendencies of a similar character in the 
church of our choice. 

If this little book shall be a benefit to conscien- 
tious Christians by helping them to understand by 
what means a spirit of rivalry and a desire for su- 
premacy finally grew into a great and tyrannous 
primacy in the church, and shall also enable them 
to see and prevent similar evils in the church with 
which they are connected, no matter what church 
that may be, the hope of the author will be real- 
ized, and his work will not have been in vain. 



INDEX. 



PAGE 

Apostles in the school of Christ 31 

Authority of the church continues 45 

Authority in each local church 45 

Apostolic custom of several elders in one church 142 

Archbishop, when introduced 146, 147 

Attitude of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople toward 

each other 158 

Authority of bishop of Rome not acknowledged by Eastern 

bishops 158 

Aim of' the papacy to rule the world 177, 178 

Attempt of the papacy to conquer England 184-189 

Authority of Jerusalem Council, on what based 77 

An important prophecy fulfilled 223-225 

A primacy beyond the power of man 260, 261 

Attributes of Deity needed by head of the church , . .260, 274 

Authority of a council 261-263 

A primacy, how composed 263, 264 

Apostolic examples of independence 269 

Acknowledgments of eminent Catholics 94-96 

Bold assertion of Romish emissaries 155, 156 

Bishop of Constantinople claims the primacy 160 

Bishop and elder the same 139 

Council above Peter 74 

Catholic theory of Peter as the rock 43 

Church existed before the apostles 48, 49 

Comment of Dr. Adam Clarke 50, 5 1 

Contest between Peter and Paul at Antioch 58 

Church government must be tested by the Scriptures 138 

Change in appointment of bishops 147, 148 

[285] 



286 INDEX. 

College of Cardinals, its origin 149 

Council of Sardica 155 

Contention between John and Gregory 160-162 

Catholic orders, their purpose , 178 

Contention in the church in regard to worship of images. . .201, 202 

Conspiracy to dethrone Childeric 203, 204 

Contentions between kings and the papacy 210 

Condition of Italy at time of French Revolution 210, 211 

Causes of the Italian Revolution 227, 228 

Count Cavour, his statesmanship 236, 237, 239, 244, 248 

Cause of war between France and Prussia 251 

Cardinal Tascherau, his protest 256 

Celebration of Italian unity 255 

Causes which led to the primacy 259 

Christ's relation to each member of his body 275 

Christ the head of every believer 275-277 

Church government of Protestants, how received 282 

Church officers, how they should be selected 140-142 

Crimean War, what Italy gained by it 236, 237 

Doctrine of succession should be stated 18, 19 

Danger of false exegesis 50 

Danger of depending on tradition 98 

Decretals of Isidore, what are they ? loi 

Duties of primate not described 133 

Defeat of the Ostrogoths 157 

Division of the Roman Empire •. . 152, 1.53 

Decrease in power of Spain 189, 190 

Deposition of Childeric a crime 205 

Defeat of Garibaldi by French troops 251 

Danger of usurpation of authority 280 

Early history of church following Scripture record not clear, 137, 138 

Early claims of Rome to supremacy 154 

Efforts of Leo XIII to unite Christendom 168 

Eastern church protected by Mohammedanism 178, 179 

Exile of Pope Pius VI 216 

Evidences that Peter was not in Rome 9i~93 

French Revolution, its causes 209 

French campaign in Italy 211-213 



INDEX. 287 

Franco-Italian war upon Austria, its results to Italy 237, 238 

French army withdrawn from Rome 252 

Gavazzi's statement 11 7-1 19 

Great danger of change in church government 138, 139 

Gregory the Great 159 

Great claims of the papacy 179, 180 

Garibaldi's conquest of Naples 239-241 

Garibaldi's attempts to take Rome 245, 246, 250, 251 

Gibbon's description of papal intrigue 206-208 

How heresies are propagated 42 

How Paul was supported at Rome 87, 90 

How Paul's disciples were to follow him 127 

Hippolytus's fanciful stories. 111-113 

Italy secures Venetia 247-249 

Inferences for John's supremacy 55, 56 

Independence of the various parts of the church 265-267 

Jerusalem Council, why convened ? 68-70 

Justinian's decree 157 

Louis Napoleon's plan for Italy 239 

Lordship in the church forbidden 33, 65 

Lesson taught by paying unlawful tribute 39 

Metropolitan bishops, their origin 145, 146 

Many bishops submit to Rome 156 

Measures of reform by Victor Emmanuel 234-236 

Necessity of understanding Catholic position 19 

No primate named among officers of the church 58, 85, 133 

No officer in the church higher than an apostle 86 

Napoleon's policy in regard to the papacy 217 

Napoleon crowned by the pope 219, 220 

Napoleon's demands upon the papacy 220 

Napoleon takes the pope prisoner 222 

No earthly head of the church before the papacy 273 

National peculiarities not Christianity 274 

No liberty in church with earthly h.ad 279, 280 

No evidence that one place v>'as to be center of authority. . . 135, 136 



288 INDEX. 

Opinion of the learned Simon io6, 107 

Office of bishop, how gained 143 

Organization necessary 264, 278 

Object of this book 283 

Position of apostle's name in list, no proof of superiority. . .23, 24 

Pi'imus^ meaning of the word 25 

Peter not alone blessed 29 

Peter's natural forwardness 29, 40 

Peter an offense unto Christ 30 

Peter and the tribute money 38, 39 

Power to forgive sins bestowed upon all the apostles 42, 44 

Power to forgive sins not transferable 44 

Peter, meaning of the word 51, 52 

Peter's power died with him 53, 54 

Paul's superiority might be inferred 57 

Peter prohibited from the Gentile field 59, 60, 81, 92 

Peter's letters, when written 61 

Peter claimed no supremacy 63, 66 

Paul independent of Peter 67, 123, 124 

Peter's part in the council at Jerusalem 73-76 

Paul's letters, when and where written 83 

Paul's silence in reference to Peter, how accounted for. . ,84, 90, 93 

Paul the chief man among the brethren at Rome 88, 92 

Paul exhorts his disciples to follow him, how 126, 127 

Paul's letters very authoritative 128, 129 

Paul's and Peter's letters compared 131, 132 

Primacy practically confined to Italians ; . . . . 150 

Position of Eastern church in regard to union 169-176 

Pope Gregory VIII and Henry IV of Germany 183, 184 

Papacy turns to the Western powers 202 

Papacy delivered from the Lombards 203 

Pope Pius IX favors liberty 230 

Pope Pius IX abjures the principles of liberty and is expelled 

from Rome 232 

Pope Pius IX declares war on Victor Emmanuel 241, 242 

Plans for Italian unity 229, 230 

Roman Catholic not appropriate name for Christian church. . . . 137 
Removal of seat of empire to Constantinople 151, 152 



INDEX. 289 

Rome becomes head of the Western church -. ... 153, 156, 176 

Republic declared in Rome 214, 216 

Retribution upon the papacy 225, 226 

Revolution of 1848 231 

Roman republic crushed by France 233 

Rivalry between chief cities of Italy 249 

Scriptures cited by Catholics in proof of Peter's supremacy, 21, 28 

Supremacy of Peter based on inference only 22, 41 

Striving for supremacy rebuked by Christ 32 

Special message to Peter no proof of his supremacy 34, 35 

Supremacy of Peter not taught by command to feed the flock 38 

Scene of Peter's labors 60, 80, 81 

Scriptures the best authority 93, 94 

Scholarship, how arrayed on question of Peter's supremacy. ... 94 

Statement of Ignatius 102 

Statement of Kendrick 106 

Struggle for the headship 1 10 

Superstition about Peter's chains 116, 117 

Specific rules for church government not given 141 

Successive ranks of clergy 148, 149 

Separation of Eastern and Western churches 167 

Statement ofjames Lord in regard to temporal power 195, 196 

States of the Church, what were they ? 199. 200, 205 

Surrender of the papacy to Napoleon 218, 219 

States of the Church annexed to French Empire 221, 222 

Theory of a succession 17 

Theory of succession denied 18 

True foundation of the church '43 

The "keys," their meaning 52, 53 

The position taken by Peter at Antioch 71, 72 

Tradition, what is it ? 99 

Tradition, how it grows 100 

Testimony of Clement 105 

Testimony of Ellendorf 95-97? 109 

Tertullian's statement _ 113 

Tertulhan's character 114, 115 

The " Fathers," who are they ? 100, 102 

The " Rock," what is meant by it ? 46, 47 



290 INDEX. 

The care of the churches upon Paul 130 

The features of the whole church represented without 

Rome 134, 135 

The papacy rules kings 181, 182 

The two-sword theory, its claims . . 190-193 

Temporal power of the popes, its meaning , 194 

The nature of Christ's kingdom 197, 198 

The gospel first preached at Rome in an authoritative manner 

by Paul 82, 83 

The freedom desired by the papacy 257 

Use of false documents loi, 162, 165, 206, 207 

Unity attained by connection with Christ 276, 277 

Victor Emmanuel occupies Rome 253, 254 

War declared by king of Sardinia against Austria 231 

Withdrawal of French troops from Rome 250 

What a restoration of the papacy would mean 258 

Word of God a safeguard 281 

War between the pope and Victor Emmanuel 241, 243 







^1 




